The latest ruling strikes me as very similar to the WS ruling: the airline didn’t provide its homework. It’s also an old case (August 2021), so I suspect AC will come better prepared for newer cases.

I expect AC’ll join WS in the latter’s court action on the same ruling it received. Here’s their stance:“WestJet’s lawyers essentially argue that the CTA misinterpreted various sections of the APPR when ruling that staffing numbers are mostly entirely in the airlines control and that a company must take “all reasonable measures” to mitigate the effects of staff shortages.

WestJet also accused the CTA of making a mistake by “reversing the onus” of proof by demanding that the airline prove that that any disruption to a flight is not in fact within its control.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/westje...b8dc7d00e/amp/

The “reversing the onus of proof” argument is an interesting tack. If the onus of proof isn’t on the airline, it presumably reverts (at least partially) to the CTA’s own normal standard: the onus is on the applicant to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the carrier failed to properly apply the rules applicable to their ticket.

That adversarial approach employed by the CTA for far too long may prove to be its fatal flaw. If the courts rule that the onus of proof is on consumers to prove that airlines control a situation, those APPRs are more or less dead in the water, with many questions about the CTAs ability to function in its current form.

While these rulings suggest a move in the right direction, I remain pessimistic about a positive outcome (for consumers) from the courts. I’m not convinced that the courts will be able to square away the onus of proof precedents the CTA has set with its adversarial approach to consumers. That’s where the NS small claims court stumbled as well with the APPRs - with the consumer being unable to prove AC could have fixed its planes in shorter period (how a consumer is supposed to prove that….is anybodys guess).