Date Issued: February 6, 2023

File: SC-2022-001880

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Singh v. WestJet Airlines Ltd., 2023 BCCRT 108

Between:

TARLOCHEN SINGH

Applicant

And:

WESTJET AIRLINES LTD.

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	David Jiang

INTRODUCTION

1.      The applicant, Tarlochen Singh, purchased an airline ticket from the respondent airline, WestJet Airlines Ltd. (WestJet). Mr. Singh says he cancelled his flight in March 2020 to comply with the BC Provincial Health Officer’s medical advice about the COVID-19 pandemic. He says WestJet wrongfully refused to refund his money and only offered a travel voucher for part of the ticket’s cost. He claims $124.03 for ticket reimbursement and $2,875.97 for time spent on this dispute, for a total of $3,000.

2.      WestJet denies liability. It says it provided Mr. Singh with a voucher for the flight’s full value without cancelling his flight. WestJet says that after this, Mr. Singh did not follow up and or appear for his scheduled flight. WestJet disagrees it owes Mr. Singh anything in these circumstances.

3.      Mr. Singh represents himself. An employee or principal represents WestJet.

4.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss Mr. Singh’s claims.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

5.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). Section 2 of the CRTA states that the CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

6.      Section 39 of the CRTA says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

7.      Section 42 of the CRTA says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

8.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUE

9.      The issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Singh is entitled to a $124.03 refund and $2,875.97 in compensation for time spent on this dispute.

BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Singh as the applicant must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. This means more likely than not. I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

11.   An emailed itinerary shows that Mr. Singh purchased a domestic one-way flight within BC on January 28, 2020. The flight was scheduled to depart on April 22, 2020 at 5:40 p.m. WestJet’s business documents show the flight cost $124.03 CAD.

12.   In mid-March 2020, BC’s Provincial Health Officer imposed public gathering restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Singh also submitted a copy of a public statement from the Health Officer. It recommends against all non-essential travel outside of Canada. As noted, Mr. Singh’s scheduled flight was entirely within BC. Mr. Singh says the Health Officer also advised people to “avoid any unnecessary travel”, but I find it unproven that the flight at issue was impermissible, illegal, or otherwise could not be taken.

13.   On March 30, 2020, WestJet emailed Mr. Singh to advise him the flight would depart and arrive at its destination 5 minutes later. WestJet’s undisputed submission is that on April 6, 2020, Mr. Singh emailed WestJet to ask for a refund. On April 10, 2020, Mr. Singh also emailed WestJet’s CEO about a refund. WestJet’s representative emailed back the same day and denied the refund. However, WestJet also provided travel credits for the “full value” of Mr. Singh’s flight that were valid for 24 months from the email’s date.

14.   Mr. Singh says WestJet only provided a partial credit of $71 CAD. WestJet disagrees and says it issued the voucher for £71 GBP, which was equal to the full value of his ticket after accounting for currency differences. Overall, I find WestJet’s versions of events supported by the evidence for the following reasons.

15.   WestJet confirmed it issued a credit of “71.00” to Mr. Singh’s “travel bank” in an April 11, 2020 email to Mr. Singh. A screenshot of WestJet’s database shows Mr. Singh’s travel bank held GBP. The screenshot also shows Mr. Singh has an address in Great Britain. I find this explains why WestJet issued the credit in GBP. Mr. Singh did not allege that WestJet used the wrong currency exchange rate. On its face I find the exchange rate used is likely accurate.

16.   The correspondence shows WestJet issued the credit without cancelling Mr. Singh’s flight. Consistent with this, on April 20, 2020, WestJet emailed that it was rescheduling Mr. Singh’s flight from its 5:45 p.m. departure to earlier that same day, at 11:00 a.m. Mr. Singh did not advise WestJet that he could not make this time or that he wished to otherwise cancel his flight. WestJet says, and I accept, that the plane departed as contemplated without Mr. Singh.

17.   There is no indication that Mr. Singh ever used the travel credit.

Is Mr. Singh entitled to a refund?

18.   In order to succeed, there must be a legal basis for Mr. Singh‘s claim. WestJet provided a copy of its “local domestic tariff” that it says is filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency under the Canada Transportation Act (CTA). WestJet says that this document is part of the parties’ contract. Consistent with this submission, CTA section 67 requires such tariffs to be posted publicly. Mr. Singh did not disagree, so I accept that the tariff applies to this dispute.

19.   Tariff rule 40(C) discusses reservation changes and cancellations. It essentially says that basic fares are non-refundable except within 24 hours of the original booking. Notably, the January 28, 2020 itinerary said that Mr. Singh purchased a “basic fare”. WestJet underlined this term in the email for emphasis. The itinerary also said that, consistent with rule 40(C), Mr. Singh’s ticket was non-refundable outside the 24-hour window of the original booking.

20.   Given the above, I find Mr. Singh purchased a basic fare and rule 40(C) applies. So, I find Mr. Singh was not entitled to a refund under the tariff.

21.   WestJet explains that it also implemented a separate “Flexible Change/Cancellation Policy” in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy is brief and lacks section numbers. From my review I find it applied to Mr. Singh’s flight and allowed him to change his reservation without a fee or cancel his reservation for a travel credit. However, I find the policy’s wording did not allow Mr. Singh to obtain a refund. I also find that WestJet provided Mr. Singh a travel credit without cancelling his reservation. So, I find WestJet exceeded the minimum required in the policy.

22.   To whatever extent Mr. Singh says the parties’ contract was frustrated, I find this unproven as well. For a contract to be frustrated, it must be rendered impossible or impracticable by an unforeseeable event for which neither party was at fault. See Wilkie v. Jeong, 2017 BCSC 2131. I find it unproven that it was impossible or impracticable to perform the flight. As noted above, I find the flight occurred as contemplated and Mr. Singh chose not to board it.

23.   Mr. Singh also alleges that Westjet breached the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR). The APPR is incorporated into the tariff under CTA section 86.11(4). However, Mr. Singh first raised this issue in his final reply submissions. Consequently, WestJet did not have the opportunity to address this allegation its submissions or evidence.

24.   I find it would be procedurally unfair to consider the APPR-related allegation in these circumstances. I reach this conclusion in part because whether a party is entitled to compensation under APPR depends on several factors. These include whether a carrier’s delay or cancellation are due to causes within the carrier’s control, within the carrier’s control but required for safety purposes, or outside the carrier’s control. See, for example, APPR sections 10 to 12. I find the submissions and evidence before me are insufficient to fairly decide this issue. As noted above, Mr. Singh raised the issue late. So, I make no findings about it.

25.   Alternatively, I would dismiss this claim as unproven as Mr. Singh provided no evidence to address the points discussed above.

26.   Finally, I find that even if Mr. Singh had proven a breach by WestJet, I find Mr. Singh’s damages are largely unproven for the following reasons.

27.   As noted above, Mr. Singh’s claim is predominantly for time spent on this dispute. CRT rule 9.5(5) says that the CRT will not award compensation for time spent dealing with a CRT proceeding except in extraordinary cases. I find this dispute falls short of that standard. It did not involve an unusually large volume of evidence or issues of great complexity. Mr. Singh says the dispute is extraordinary because he contacted the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Canadian Transportation Agency, and also WestJet multiple times. I find these submissions are about the time he spent on the dispute and do not show the dispute itself is unusual or extraordinary.

28.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule. I dismiss Mr. Singh’s claims for reimbursement of CRT fees. The parties did not claim any specific dispute-related expenses.

 

ORDER

29.   I dismiss Mr. Singh’s claims and this dispute.