Delayed, Cancelled and Denied Boarding: The Carrier’s Obligations

The carrier’s obligations in the event of disruptions vary depending on the legislation applicable to your flight. For more details on the legislation applicable to your situation, see the page on scopes.

Firstly, the European regulation provides for a fairly simple regime. Indeed, if the situation causing a disruption is not due to an extraordinary circumstance beyond the carrier’s control, the carrier must offer compensation.

Case law mainly retains the extraordinary circumstance as any situation that is not inherent to aeronautical practice.

Regulation (EC) 261/2004 (European Union)	Rights
Situation involving extraordinary circumstances	Right to information Right to assistance Right to care
Situation attributable to the carrier	Right to information Right to assistance Right to care Right to compensation

However, the Canadian regulations provide for a much narrower regime with respect to situations requiring the carrier to offer compensation. Indeed, although the airline is fully responsible for the disruption, it can be exonerated if it can demonstrate that it is necessary for safety reasons.

Air Passenger Protection Regulations (Canada)	Rights
Situation beyond the control of the carrier	Right to information Right to assistance
Situation within the carrier’s control but necessary for safety reasons	Right to information Right to assistance Right to care
Situation attributable to the carrier	Right to information Right to assistance Right to care Right to compensation

*Consult the different pages concerning each of the carrier’s obligations according to the disruption for more details on the eligibility conditions.

Situation beyond the control of the carrier

This situation refers to any unforeseeable situation that is completely out of the airline’s control. Indeed, this situation cannot lead to an obligation to compensate him.

For example, a snowstorm that grounded all planes causing a delay in arrival at the final destination cannot be attributed to the airline. This is also the case for a situation of political instability that would force a cancellation or even a plane that would have collided with a bird in mid-flight, causing a delay on its next route.

Situation within the carrier’s control but necessary for safety reasons

This situation differs from the first, considering that it is, this time, attributable to the carrier. The disruption is caused by a situation that is within the airline’s control, but cannot be directly attributable to it since it is deemed necessary for the safety of passengers.

“Necessary for safety reasons”

The regulations define this term as follows:

Means any legal requirement that must be met in order to reduce risks to the safety of passengers, including safety decisions that are the responsibility of the pilot of the aircraft or that are made in accordance with the safety management system as defined in subsection 101.01(1) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations, other than planned maintenance performed in accordance with legal requirements. (required for safety purposes)

Considering this definition, any disturbance caused by a safety concern, such as a mechanical problem or apparent physical damage to the aircraft, may exonerate the carrier from liability, even if it is caused by an element that is under the carrier’s control.

For example, a vehicle that collides with the aircraft before take-off and causes a delay in its departure for repair will be considered a necessary situation for safety reasons.

However, the carrier will not be exonerated if the repair or mechanical problem is not considered to be a “mechanical failure”:

A mechanical problem that reduces the safety of passengers, excluding the problem discovered during planned maintenance carried out in accordance with legal requirements. (mechanical malfunction)

For example, an unforeseen mechanical problem discovered during the pre-flight inspection requiring repair may justify the delay or cancellation. However, if the problem is due to negligence on the part of the carrier during regular maintenance and this problem should have been reported beforehand, the transport cannot be justified by safety concerns.

The notion of what is ” necessary for safety reasons ” can be subject to several interpretations and the justification provided by the airline can be disputed by the passenger. At that time, the Canadian Transportation Agency may be required to assess whether the decision was indeed necessary for safety reasons, on a case-by-case basis.

These clauses must be applied in a justified and transparent manner. Analysis by a specialized lawyer can be helpful, especially in cases where the justification provided by the airline seems to unfairly withhold you from your right to compensation.

Situation attributable to the carrier

Finally, this situation refers to the event that is foreseeable, inherent to the flight practice and causes a disruption that is under the carrier’s control. In this sense, the airline could have taken appropriate measures to avoid the disruption.

For example, an organizational problem in crew scheduling that causes a delay on a flight is a situation that is entirely within the carrier’s control.

Previous flight

It should be noted that any disruption directly related to a delay or cancellation of a previous flight and attributable to a situation beyond the carrier’s control or necessary for safety reasons will exempt the airline from its liability in connection with the payment of compensation (snowball effect). Indeed, if the carrier has taken the necessary measures to mitigate the consequences of the previous delay or cancellation, the latter will not be bound by an additional obligation.

If you would like to check if your situation entitles you to recourse, contact us today for a personalized evaluation and effective legal support .