Year in review: Aviation law in Canada

All questions

Year in review

From mid-2024 to late 2025, Canadian aviation law experienced an unusually active period, marked by major appellate decisions that defined the scope of regulatory authority, carrier liability, and accessibility obligations. The following decisions illustrate how Canadian courts and regulators have shaped key aspects of carrier liability, consumer protection, and competition during this period.

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) against a constitutional and treaty-based challenge brought by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and several foreign carriers.⁵ The Court held that the APPR were a valid exercise of Parliament’s transport power and that their compensation regime does not conflict with the Montreal Convention. The ruling anchors consumer protection firmly within Canadian regulatory jurisdiction and confirms that the APPR operate as an administrative framework rather than a parallel cause of action for damages. For airlines, the case ends uncertainty about the APPR’s legality but confirms a dual compliance burden: civil liability under Montreal and regulatory liability under the CT Act.

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a CTA order requiring Air Canada to accommodate a passenger using a large power wheelchair.⁶ The carrier had argued that substituting an accessible aircraft would cause undue hardship; the Court rejected this, finding that the company’s scale and resources made accommodation feasible. The decision establishes a clear national precedent regarding the meaning of 'undue hardship' under the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (ATPDR), compelling carriers to incorporate accessibility into their fleet planning and scheduling, rather than treating it as an ad hoc obligation.

Arising from the 2020 downing of flight PS752 near Tehran, this appeal⁷ affirmed liability and removed Montreal Convention caps. The Ontario Court of Appeal found that Ukraine International Airlines was negligent in operating in a known conflict zone amid escalating hostilities and that its risk assessments were inadequate. The Court held that the loss was not 'accidentally unavoidable' within the meaning of Article 21(2) of the Convention and therefore damages were uncapped. The case sets an important precedent for carriers’ operational-risk governance and for insurers assessing coverage in hostile regions.

The Federal Court ruled that Air Canada’s liability for the 2023 theft of gold and banknotes from its Toronto Pearson cargo facility is limited under the Montreal Convention.⁸ Brink’s shipped approximately US $15 million using the carrier’s 'AC Secure' service and argued that notations such as 'valuable cargo' and 'special supervision requested' on the waybills met the requirement of Article 22(3) for a 'special declaration of interest'. The Court rejected this, holding that the Convention demands an explicit monetary declaration of value and payment of a supplementary charge to displace the limit. The higher AC Secure rate was a standard tariff, not an extra fee, so neither condition was met. Air Canada’s liability was therefore capped at 22 special drawing rights ( per kilogram.

The judgment confirms that premium-security services or 'valuable cargo' markings alone do not lift Montreal’s limits, reinforcing the Convention’s uniform approach to limitation of liability.

The Ontario Superior Court rejected certification of a proposed class action alleging that major carriers had conspired to limit transborder capacity between Canada and the United States, thereby inflating fares.⁹ The Court found no reasonable cause of action and insufficient common issues. The decision demonstrates the stringent evidentiary bar for competition-law class claims in the aviation sector and affirms the robustness of Canada’s dual Competition Bureau/CTA oversight structure.

The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal found Air Canada liable for negligent misrepresentation after its website chatbot provided incorrect information about bereavement fares.¹⁰ The Tribunal held that the airline remained responsible for all information on its website, automated or otherwise. Although the damages were modest, the decision establishes a useful principle for carriers adopting AI tools and underscores the need for content alignment between digital interfaces and tariffs.