Air Canada is once again under scrutiny after being ordered to compensate a passenger for a 24-hour flight delay, a decision that underscores how Canada’s strengthened air passenger protection regime is reshaping the obligations of the country’s largest carrier.

The ruling, which comes amid a series of legal setbacks and regulatory penalties for the airline, highlights growing pressure on carriers to follow compensation rules for serious disruptions, rather than blaming weather, operational constraints or third parties.

More News

The latest case centers on an international Air Canada itinerary in which a passenger arrived roughly 24 hours later than scheduled after a cascading series of delays and missed connections. The traveler filed a complaint after the airline rejected their request for compensation, arguing that the disruption stemmed from factors beyond its control and therefore fell outside mandatory payment obligations.

Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations, first introduced in 2019 and significantly clarified by courts in recent years, set out minimum compensation amounts when passengers are delayed by more than three hours in reaching their final destination and the disruption is deemed within the airline’s control. For large carriers, delays of nine hours or more can trigger some of the highest payouts. In this dispute, the protracted 24-hour delay and the passenger’s insistence that Air Canada mishandled rebooking and contingency planning ultimately persuaded adjudicators that the carrier bore responsibility.

The tribunal reviewing the case concluded that Air Canada had not demonstrated that the delay was caused solely by unavoidable safety or weather reasons, or by circumstances entirely outside its operations. Instead, the decision pointed to gaps in customer care and the airline’s ability to mitigate the disruption, ordering Air Canada to pay compensation consistent with the top tier of delay payments under the federal rules.

The ruling adds to a growing body of decisions that interpret the regulations broadly in favor of passengers, particularly where airlines cannot clearly show that extraordinary circumstances left them no reasonable operational choices to prevent the worst delays.

How Canada’s passenger protection rules work

At the heart of the dispute is Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations, often referred to as the APPR. These rules require airlines to provide minimum standards of treatment and compensation for flight delays, cancellations, denied boarding and issues such as lost or delayed baggage. For international flights, the framework sits alongside the Montreal Convention, a global treaty that also governs airline liability for delays and baggage problems.

The regulations distinguish between disruptions that are within an airline’s control, those within its control but required for safety, and those outside its control entirely. Only the first category routinely leads to cash compensation for delays, while the other categories generally trigger obligations such as rebooking and provision of meals or accommodation, but not monetary payouts.

Recent jurisprudence has made clear that airlines face a high bar when they attempt to classify a disruption as outside their control. Documentation, operational logs and weather data must support claims that an event was unavoidable. In 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the legality of the APPR, confirming that carriers operating international flights to and from Canada can be compelled to pay delay compensation on top of obligations set out in international treaties.

For travelers, the 24-hour delay case offers a concrete illustration of how these rules function in practice. Once the tribunal determined that Air Canada’s operational decisions contributed significantly to the eventual arrival time, the compensation mechanism became almost automatic. The ruling also reinforces that compensation is assessed based on the arrival delay at the final destination, not simply on the initial departure from the originating airport.

A pattern of rulings against Air Canada

The 24-hour delay decision arrives against a backdrop of other high-profile setbacks for Air Canada in courts and before regulators. In late 2023, the Canadian Transportation Agency issued an administrative monetary penalty of 97,500 Canadian dollars against the carrier over its handling of a passenger with a disability, after finding multiple violations of accessible transportation regulations related to assistance for a wheelchair user.

In a separate episode that attracted international attention in 2024, a British Columbia tribunal ordered the airline to compensate a passenger who had been misled by Air Canada’s own website chatbot regarding bereavement fare refunds. The airline’s argument that its automated assistant acted as a separate entity and therefore bore responsibility for the misinformation was sharply rejected, with the adjudicator stressing that airlines are accountable for all information presented on their platforms.

Air Canada has also been locked in a long-running battle over baggage compensation. In one prominent case involving delayed luggage in Vancouver, the airline appealed a Canadian Transportation Agency order requiring it to pay more than 2,000 Canadian dollars in expenses to a passenger. Air Canada has argued before the Federal Court that some of the claimed expenses lacked a sufficient causal link to the initial delay and that the original decision did not reflect reasonable expectations under the Montreal Convention’s compensation limits.

Together, these recent outcomes paint a picture of a carrier frequently testing the boundaries of passenger protection rules, only to see adjudicators and judges reassert and, in some cases, expand consumer rights in response.

What the 24-hour delay ruling means for travelers

For passengers flying to, from or within Canada, the 24-hour delay judgment strengthens the practical value of the APPR by confirming that prolonged disruptions will be closely scrutinized, and that airlines must do more than simply point to high-level operational challenges. The case underscores that if a carrier fails to demonstrate that a delay was truly outside its control, it will likely be ordered to pay.

Consumer advocates say such rulings are critical in shifting the incentives for airlines. Each time a tribunal or court insists that an airline document the specific causes of a delay and its mitigation efforts, it raises the likelihood that carriers will proactively rebook passengers, provide hotel rooms and meal vouchers, and explore options to minimize total arrival delays rather than default to broad denials of responsibility.

In practical terms, the decision encourages travelers to keep detailed records when delays occur. Boarding passes, screenshots of flight status updates, photos of departure boards and written notes of interactions with airline agents can all help reconstruct events if a complaint progresses to the Canadian Transportation Agency or small claims court. For international itineraries, documentation of missed connections and new routing also becomes crucial in assessing total delay at the final destination.

Advocates also note that the decision reinforces an often overlooked point: under Canadian rules, compensation relates to how late a passenger arrives at their destination, not to the time spent on a specific aircraft. A relatively short delay that triggers a missed connection and an overnight wait can quickly cross the nine-hour threshold that qualifies for the highest compensation tiers.

Regulators and courts stepping up enforcement

The 24-hour delay order aligns with a broader shift toward more assertive oversight of Canada’s air sector. The Canadian Transportation Agency has increasingly used its enforcement tools, including monetary penalties and binding compensation determinations, in response to rising passenger complaints since the pandemic recovery began.

Courts have largely backed the regulator’s approach. The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision upholding the APPR confirmed that the agency has the authority to require delay compensation on international flights, even when carriers argue that international treaties should limit their liability. This judgment effectively removed one of the main legal challenges airlines had used to contest the compensation regime.

At the same time, judges have not hesitated to question the reasoning behind individual compensation awards. In the delayed baggage dispute that Air Canada took to the Federal Court, the judge criticized aspects of the original compensation calculation, suggesting that purchases made days after a bag was returned did not have a clear enough link to the initial delay. While that decision may pare back the value of some claims, it also clarifies the standard of proof required for expenses and signals that tribunals must carefully justify how each claimed cost arises from the disruption.

The combined effect of these rulings is a more structured legal landscape: airlines are on notice that they will be held to their obligations when delays are within their control, while passengers are being given clearer guidance on what constitutes reasonable, compensable losses.

Escalating reputational pressure on Air Canada

Beyond the financial impact of individual compensation orders, the steady stream of negative decisions has begun to weigh on Air Canada’s public image. Incidents involving passengers with disabilities, the chatbot misrepresentation case and now the 24-hour delay ruling all feed a narrative that the carrier frequently falls short on service and accountability, particularly under stress.

For a brand that has long marketed itself as a premium international airline, repeated findings of non-compliance with consumer and accessibility standards are damaging. Each ruling is not just a legal loss but also a reputational setback, amplified across traditional media and social platforms where frustrated travelers share their own stories of delays, denials and difficult claims processes.

Industry analysts note that while many global carriers have faced criticism for their handling of post-pandemic disruptions, Air Canada appears to feature disproportionately in formal complaints and legal cases. Persistent dissatisfaction can eventually translate into booking decisions, especially on routes where travelers can choose between multiple airlines or alliances.

At the same time, the airline continues to report strong demand and load factors, suggesting that any reputational damage has not yet translated into a severe commercial hit. However, as regulators and courts continue to highlight specific failures in passenger care, the risk that public perception hardens is an increasingly important factor for the carrier’s management and investors.

How Air Canada is responding

Air Canada has responded to several recent rulings by turning to the courts for clarity, particularly where the airline argues that compensation decisions deviate from international norms or common sense thresholds. In the delayed baggage case, the company said it was seeking guidance on what constitutes reasonable expenses for passengers whose bags arrive late, emphasizing that it accepts its responsibilities but wants predictable standards.

Internally, the airline has signaled that it is reviewing processes around passenger communication and the handling of vulnerable travelers. After being penalized over its treatment of a wheelchair user left to disembark without assistance, Air Canada faced strong public backlash and renewed demands from disability advocates for systemic changes in how the carrier trains and deploys airport staff.

The chatbot misrepresentation case has already led to updates in how information is presented on Air Canada’s website and digital channels, according to company statements in the wake of the ruling. The carrier acknowledged that the automated assistant used misleading wording about bereavement fare refunds and pledged to tighten oversight of such tools.

In the context of the 24-hour delay order, industry observers say the airline may need to invest further in operational resilience and customer care training, particularly at hubs where disruption can quickly cascade. Ensuring that staff understand the compensation thresholds and documentation requirements under the APPR could help the airline make faster, more consistent decisions in the moment, reducing the number of disputes that end up before tribunals and courts.

What travelers should watch for next

The 24-hour delay ruling is unlikely to be the last major decision involving Air Canada and passenger rights. With the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the federal protection regime and growing public awareness of compensation entitlements, more travelers are turning to formal complaints when they feel their claims are unfairly denied.

Experts expect further refinement of the rules around what counts as an event outside an airline’s control, especially in cases involving crew shortages, maintenance issues and airport congestion. As tribunals and courts gather more cases, patterns will emerge that could either tighten or relax the standards applied to carriers in future delay disputes.

For now, the message to passengers is clear: if a disruption leads to a lengthy arrival delay and the airline’s explanation appears vague or unsupported, there may be grounds to seek compensation. The news that Air Canada has been ordered to pay for a 24-hour delay reinforces that, under Canada’s current framework, large carriers face real consequences when they fall short of their obligations.

For the airline, each such ruling is both a legal obligation and a reminder that the era of loosely enforced passenger rights in Canada is ending. With regulators more willing to levy penalties and courts showing little patience for attempts to sidestep clear rules, Air Canada is contending with a new reality in which the cost of inadequate disruption management is measured not only in frustrated customers, but also in binding compensation orders and high-profile public rebukes.