Alaa Tannous was pleased when the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ordered Air Canada to pay him $2,079 for delayed luggage, following a flight he and wife, Nancy, took from Toronto to Vancouver in 2022.
“I felt it’s fair,” said Tannous, who had waited more than two years for the CTA’s decision.
But instead of receiving a payout from Air Canada, the airline served him with court documents this past December — on Christmas Eve. Air Canada is taking Tannous to Federal Court in an attempt to overturn the CTA’s decision.
The CTA, Canada’s transport regulator, isn’t named in the court case, so Tannous is on his own.
“It was shocking,” he said about being served at his Toronto home. “It’s disappointing to see the airline, after all the money I spent with them over the years … they’re appealing a $2,000 claim.”
This is the fourth CTA ruling airlines have challenged in court in 2024, and the second one filed by Air Canada. The other case, which is still before the courts, involves passengers Andrew and Anna Dyczkowski in B.C. They were awarded $2,000 for a flight delay, which Air Canada is contesting.
“Something is really wrong in the system,” Andrew Dyczkowski told CBC News in June 2024.
Air Canada is going to court to overturn a ruling that it must compensate a B.C. couple for a delayed flight. Some experts say this could become a trend and other carriers could flood the courts with more cases.
The way the rules currently work, after CTA officers issue rulings, if passengers or airlines disagree with the outcome, they can contest the decision in Federal Court. Airlines contesting CTA rulings is rare, but some affected passengers and consumer advocates argue the CTA complaints system needs to change, so passengers never have to worry about getting dragged into court battles.
“It does have a chilling effect and it’s a scary proposition” for a passenger, said Geoff White, executive director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), a national consumer advocacy group.
White says many people can’t afford to hire a lawyer to take on an airline.
“Litigation lawyers aren’t cheap,” he said. “It puts customers at a real disadvantage.”
As for Tannous’s case, White says the tens of thousands of dollars Air Canada will likely spend on the legal challenge “could be better spent on improving customer service.”
What is a ‘reasonable’ amount?
Tannous says he has no plans to hire a lawyer to try to win back what the CTA determined he’s owed: $2,079 to cover toiletries, make-up and clothing he and his wife purchased after landing in Vancouver without the one suitcase they had packed for a weekend getaway.
“There’s no point for me to waste more money,” he said.
Tannous says an Air Canada employee told the couple at the time that the airline had no clues as to the whereabouts of their suitcase, and that they could spend “a reasonable amount” on necessities.
“They couldn’t even track the luggage, if it’s in Toronto or, like, on the way,” said Tannous. “I was under the impression, luggage is gone.”
When Tannous first submitted the couple’s receipts for compensation, Air Canada offered them $250 to settle the case, according to emails seen by CBC News.
Tannous says he rejected the offer and instead filed a complaint with the CTA. In court documents, Air Canada argues that a CTA officer “did not properly, reasonably or at all, apply and/or interpret” relevant regulations when reaching a decision.
Air Canada rules at that time stated that it would pay a maximum of approximately $2,400 for delayed or lost luggage. However, the airline argues in court documents that Tannous and his wife did not provide evidence to justify the amount they spent to replace items in a missing — not lost — suitcase.
Air Canada also states the luggage arrived the morning after the couple had landed, and yet they submitted a receipt for a pair of women’s running shoes purchased later that same day. But Tannous says he recalls that he and his wife left the hotel early that morning — before the suitcase had arrived without warning.
Tannous says that he feels the couple’s purchases to replace missing items were reasonable, and that the CTA agreed.
“I believed in the system, which is my mistake,” he said. “It has to be changed.”
CTA weighs in
Air Canada said it can’t comment on a case before the courts. In court documents, the airline said it’s not seeking legal costs from Tannous, should it win its legal challenge.
The CTA says the agency isn’t named in the case, as it wasn’t involved in the original compensation claim Tannous made to Air Canada.
According to court records, the CTA had requested to take part in the other agency ruling Air Canada is contesting in court, involving the Dyczkowskis. However, Air Canada fought the CTA’s request and, in late November 2024, the judge sided with the airline.
Despite the setback, the CTA defends the current system.
“Anyone that is subject to a decision made by a government organization, when it affects their rights or interests, can challenge that decision through review by the Courts,” said CTA spokesperson, Jadrino Huot in an email.
“This is a key part of how the Canadian justice system works.”
But PIAC’s White argues there are better ways to resolve such disputes.
He offers as an example, the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services (CCTS) — Canada’s national body for resolving telecommunications complaints. If a customer or a telecom disagrees with a CCTS finding, avenues for contesting it don’t involve the courts.
“Tighten up the Canadian Transportation Agency process so there’s a built-in appeal route,” said White. “It keeps it outside of an expensive court process.” Such a shift could take time, as it would likely involve legislative changes.
White also said Canada’s Air Passenger Protections Regulations should be more clear and concise to avoid disputes over how the rules are applied. The CTA recently unveiled proposed amendments to simplify and strengthen the regulations, but has yet to announce when they will take effect.
As for Tannous, he says he’s speaking out about his case in the hopes of winning in the court of public opinion.
“This is not acceptable,” he said.
