I'd suggest you write your MP and let them know the details and what you think about the process. They usually pay attention to old people, you guys actually vote!

I did contact my MP 6 months ago ( at the 2 year mark), and again yesterday.
Unfortunately, mine is an opposition MP ( albeit deputy leader).

Old people...... Yes we are the ones who vote
If only the elected officials listens to us old people.
Mind you with this wisdom of time, we do have a springle of crazy and don't forget the aging process of forgetting stuff like how I started this thread and i do not remember where I was going with this or who I am now?

Opposition MP's sit on Committees and are able to introduce legislation so it's an effort that might not totally be in vain.

The more attention that can be brought to the issue the better.

You can also reach out to the media...Pat Foran at CTV is a good one: Have a story tip for Pat? Email [email protected]

The CBC also always seems willing to dump on AC and airlines in general, so that's another option.

If folks have a moment to write to the Minister of Transport and/or their local MP, here is a form letter you can use or adapt.


Subject: Need for Comprehensive Reform of Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations



Dear [Minister MacKinnon / Your Member of Parliament],

I am writing to express serious concern about the ongoing failure of Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR) and the urgent need for comprehensive reform to restore fairness, accountability, and public confidence in Canada’s air travel system.

While APPR was introduced to protect travellers and hold airlines accountable, its structure and enforcement have instead enabled systemic avoidance of responsibility by airlines, often at the direct expense of Canadian passengers.

Structural weaknesses in APPR

APPR contains significant and well-documented weaknesses that airlines routinely exploit, including:

• Broad and ambiguous exemptions, such as “safety-related” or “outside the airline’s control,” which are frequently invoked without meaningful evidence
• A burden of proof that in practice falls on passengers rather than on airlines
• Complex rules that are difficult for ordinary travellers to understand or enforce
• Weak standards of care that allow airlines to withhold meals, accommodation, or rebooking unless passengers actively challenge them
• Penalties that are too low to deter non-compliance and encourage denial rather than compliance

These flaws have created an imbalance where airlines can delay, deny, or deflect claims with little consequence, even when disruptions are clearly within their control.

CTA complaint processing delays

The enforcement failure of APPR is most evident in the current state of the Canadian Transportation Agency. Complaint processing times have grown so long that many passengers now wait years for a resolution. This delay effectively denies access to justice and removes any incentive for airlines to resolve disputes fairly or promptly.

The resulting backlog has become widely known, including among airlines themselves, who are fully aware that prolonged delays weaken passenger claims and reduce accountability.

Forcing passengers into small claims court

With CTA processes unable to deliver timely outcomes, Canadians are increasingly forced to pursue airlines through small claims court. This places an unreasonable and inappropriate burden on individual travellers.

Airlines exploit this imbalance by prolonging proceedings, seeking repeated adjournments, overwhelming claimants with procedural tactics, and making misleading or false claims about the causes of delays or their obligations to provide care. Many passengers ultimately accept reduced settlements or abandon valid claims entirely due to cost, stress, and exhaustion.

This outcome is not accidental. It is a predictable result of weak regulation and ineffective enforcement.

Use of non-disclosure agreements

Of particular concern is the growing practice of airlines requiring non-disclosure agreements as a condition of settlement. These agreements prevent passengers from sharing their experiences, obscure systemic issues, and eliminate public accountability.

Allowing non-disclosure agreements in air passenger rights settlements undermines transparency, consumer protection, and regulatory integrity. This practice should be explicitly prohibited.

Need for legislative leadership

Canada has the opportunity to adopt proven best practices from other jurisdictions, particularly the European Union and the United Kingdom, where passenger protections are clearer, enforcement is stronger, and the burden of proof rests squarely with airlines.

I respectfully urge your office to pursue meaningful reform by:

• Closing APPR loopholes and clearly defining airline responsibility
• Shifting the burden of proof onto airlines
• Strengthening and automating standards of care and compensation
• Establishing firm timelines and adequate resourcing for CTA complaint resolution
• Prohibiting non-disclosure agreements in air passenger rights settlements
• Implementing penalties that meaningfully deter non-compliance

Air travel is essential infrastructure in Canada. Canadians should not be required to fight for years or go to court to receive the protections Parliament has promised them.

I hope you will act in the public interest to ensure Canada’s air passenger protections work as intended for all Canadians.

Respectfully,

[Your Name]
[City, Province]

Anyone have an experience where two people on a reservation receive their $1000 compensation for their overnight flight delay, but another person on the exact same reservation (same PNR) receives a denial that their flight wasn't eligible for compensation due to safety related reasons or not within the control of the airline? I've received the two $1,000 e-transfers already.

I replied to the email explaining this over 3 weeks ago, but haven't heard anything back yet. Wondering if its time to escalate and if so where to go?

Question
AC98 to BOG was delayed and cancelled and about 12 hours later it took off for BOG. I received notice that AC98 and the return AC95 was cancelled.
I opted not to fly because the delays made the trip not with it. I received a full refund and $400, plus hotel etc. but what about AC95? I cancelled because AC98 cancelled but AC95 was still cancelled but AC only compensated me on AC98 heading down.

Should i not be compensated coming back up on AC95 even though i was not there and cancelled south bound due to the cancelation of AC98, when AC95 was cancelled?

Is there an email to reach out to for AC regarding an existing damaged bag claim?

P2 submitted a damaged bag claim to AC since the entire hardshell cracked which was reviewed by Canada Luggage Depot but was punted back to AC due to being "unable to find a suitable repair or replacement for the baggage".

It's been almost 2 weeks since receipt of this email with no further communication from AC so would like to follow up but the notification was sent from a do-not-reply email.

Any leads for contact would be greatly appreciated!

TIA

It's my understanding that you aren't obligated to accept luggage replacements the airline suggests. Instead, you just need to purchase a new suitcase and send the airline the bill for it pursuant to Article 19 of the Montreal Convention which applies to all travel domestic and international when it comes to lost/damaged/delayed baggage. The amount they have to reimburse you is capped at around $2,000 USD per passenger but I suspect your luggage would cost less than that. The important thing is to find something comparable to what you already had before (doesn't necessarily need to be an exact match if they aren't making that bag anymore). Also you don't need to have your original receipt for the luggage you may have purchased years ago, all you need is the receipt of the new luggage since by law they have to reimburse you for the replacement cost not what it may have costs you several years ago. And no, the fact that you used the bag for some time doesn't diminish the amount that they must reimburse you. Keep in mind Article 26 of the Montreal Convention prohibits the airlines from coming up with their own policies to limit liability aside from what is stated in Article 19 of the Convention. This is the bargain the airlines take. They get predictable and reasonable liability caps in exchange for not creating their own rules.

-RooFlyer88

thanks, appreciate the info!

since it's punted back to AC I believe they are going to be offering monetary compensation yes - but they just haven't reached out at all since the notification about 2 weeks ago. would you happen to know an email I can contact to follow up my ticket with?

Curious about whether the following situation should be eligible for compensation: AC1997 YYZ-YLW on March 1. Scheduled 9:10 am - 11:10 am. Actually arrived 2:23 pm (per flight aware, I didn't note the exact time we deplaned). First delay was YYZ, "because we need more time to tow the aircraft" (seriously? the plane arrived the night before). Then took a while before we left the gate. Then, a fuel stop in Winnipeg.

Surely, they will claim the fuel stop was for safety (though reducing pax count / offloading cargo in YYZ would have been a way to avoid any chance of a tech stop). Odds seem quite low on any APPR comp.

Just had a YYZ-LHR claim denied and closed because ... I hadn't contacted AC to try to resolve the claim.

Except,. I included with the claim, the rejection message I got from Air Canada when I contacted them...

So tired of crap, I won't bother refiling and waiting more years...

Isn't that kind of what they are counting on based on how every step of the process is set up? It's a war of attrition and they've got more resolve than you.

My thinking exactly.