Date Issued: July 8, 2025

File: SC-2023-012798

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Kooner v. Flair Airlines Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 913

Between:

SAMRAT KOONER

Applicant

And:

FLAIR AIRLINES LTD.

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about compensation for a cancelled flight. The applicant, Samrat Kooner, says the respondent airline, Flair Airlines Ltd. (Flair), cancelled his flight from Kelowna to Calgary. He claims $500 under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR). Mr. Kooner represents himself.

2.      Flair agrees Mr. Kooner’s flight was cancelled. It says it was due to weather, so it is not required to compensate him. Flair is represented by an authorized employee.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      The Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). 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. These are the CRT’s formal written reasons.

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

5.      CRTA section 42 says the CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary, and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in court.

ISSUE

6.      This issue in this dispute is whether Mr. Kooner is entitled to $500 in compensation for the cancelled flight.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

7.      In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Kooner must prove his claim on a balance of probabilities. This means that the relevant evidence must show that it is more likely than not that the claim is proven.

8.      Flair did not provide arguments or evidence although it was given the opportunity. So, I have read Mr. Kooner’s arguments and evidence and Flair’s Dispute Response in making my decision. I refer only to that which I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

9.      For the following reasons, I find Mr. Kooner has proved he is entitled to $500 compensation for the cancelled flight.

10.   The parties agree that Mr. Kooner booked a flight operated by Flair. Mr. Kooner says he was scheduled to leave Kelowna at 3:00 p.m. for Calgary on December 23, 2022. The parties agree Flair cancelled the flight. The evidence shows Flair rebooked Mr. Kooner for an alternate flight to depart Kelowna for Calgary on December 30, 2022. However, Mr. Kooner booked an alternate flight from Kelowna to Edmonton on December 24, 2022, leaving at 10:25 a.m.. He then travelled by vehicle to Calgary.

11.   On December 24, 2022, Mr. Kooner emailed Flair requesting compensation under the APPR. Flair did not respond except to request further details of the flight.

12.   APPR section 12(3) says if a carrier cancels a flight within its control less than 14 days before the scheduled flight, it must compensate the passenger as set out in section 19. APPR section 19(1)(b)(iii) requires a small carrier, like Flair, to compensate a passenger $500 if the arrival of the passenger’s flight at the destination is delayed by 9 hours or more.

13.   As Mr. Kooner’s flight to Edmonton was approximately 18 hours after his scheduled flight to Calgary, I find that if the flight cancellation was within Flair’s control, it must pay Mr. Kooner $500.

14.   Mr. Kooner says Flair told him it cancelled the flight due to weather, but he says other flights departed Kelowna that day. In its Dispute Notice, Flair says the flight was cancelled due to weather, and that other airlines might have been able to fly depending on the aircraft type and runway length.

15.   Under APPR section 10(1)(c), weather is a condition outside of the carrier’s control. If a carrier claims it does not have to pay compensation due to a circumstance outside of its control, it must provide evidence of that circumstance.^[1] Further, when a party does not provide relevant evidence with no explanation, the CRT may make an adverse inference. An adverse inference is when the CRT assumes the party did not provide the relevant evidence because it would have damaged their case. I find an adverse inference is appropriate here.

16.   As I note above, Flair did not provide any evidence. So, there is no evidence before me that the flight was cancelled due to weather, other than Flair’s statement.

17.   Based on Flair’s lack of evidence and the adverse inference, I find that the flight cancellation was for reasons within Flair’s control under APPR section 12. So, I find Mr. Kooner is entitled to $500 compensation as set out in APPR section 19.

18.   Mr. Kooner also claims that he incurred hotel costs, and lost wages, due to the delay. However, he did not provide any evidence of those costs, so I dismiss this part of his claim.

19.   In his Dispute Notice, Mr. Kooner waived his claim to pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, so I do not award any.

20.   Under CRTA section 49 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 find Mr. Kooner is entitled to reimbursement of $125 in CRT fees. He did not claim any dispute-related expenses.

ORDERS

21.   Within 14 days of this decision, I order Flair to pay Mr. Kooner a total of $625, broken down as follows:

a.    $500 in compensation, and

b.    $125 in CRT fees.

22.   Mr. Kooner is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable.

23.   This is a validated decision and order. Under CRTA section 58.1, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.