A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has temporarily halted approval of a 4.5 million dollar settlement between WestJet and approximately 3,500 female flight attendants based in Vancouver and Calgary, citing concerns over fairness, transparency and the limited time workers were initially given to review the proposal.
Judge Questions Compressed Timeline for Class Members
The proposed settlement, the product of mediation in December, was circulated to current and former WestJet flight attendants earlier this year. It followed a long-running class action alleging the airline failed to implement and maintain an adequate anti-harassment program for female cabin crew.
At a hearing this week, Justice Jacqueline Hughes of the B.C. Supreme Court raised concerns that attendants were initially given only three days to assess the agreement and decide whether to support, oppose or opt out of the deal. In class actions of this scale, courts typically expect a review period closer to 30 days, particularly when sensitive workplace issues and complex legal waivers are at stake.
The judge’s decision to put the process on hold effectively pauses the settlement’s approval, even though WestJet and class counsel had jointly asked the court to sign off on the agreement. By intervening at this stage, the court signaled that procedural fairness to frontline workers would be a central consideration before any payout is allowed to proceed.
Justice Hughes has now extended the deadline for flight attendants to review the settlement and file objections until March 23, giving thousands of crew members across WestJet’s network, including those in Vancouver and Calgary, several additional weeks to seek advice and weigh the consequences.
Details of the 4.5 Million Dollar Settlement
The proposed 4.5 million dollar package is designed to resolve claims covering the period from April 4, 2016 to February 28, 2021, when the lawsuit alleges WestJet failed to put in place robust systems to prevent, report and respond to workplace harassment involving female flight attendants. The agreement includes compensation for roughly 3,500 class members, as well as legal fees, administration costs and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.
Rather than directly compensating individual harms such as lost income or emotional distress, the settlement is structured around disgorgement of costs the airline is alleged to have saved by not implementing a more comprehensive anti-harassment framework. After fees and expenses, individual payments are expected to fall in the range of several hundred to around a thousand dollars per attendant, according to court filings and summaries discussed in open court.
Crucially, WestJet does not admit liability under the deal. While the company has agreed to pay the settlement amount if the court approves it, the agreement states that the airline continues to deny breaching its contractual obligations to employees. That clause, standard in many class settlements, has become a flashpoint for some attendants who argue that financial compensation alone is not enough without a clear acknowledgment of responsibility.
The settlement also contemplates the appointment of a third-party expert to review WestJet’s existing anti-harassment policies. However, the extent of that reviewer’s independence and the degree to which the airline would be required to act on any recommendations became a central focus of the judge’s scrutiny.
Origins of the Harassment Case Against WestJet
The class action has its roots in a complaint first filed in 2016 by a former WestJet flight attendant who alleged she was sexually assaulted by a pilot during a layover several years earlier. Her case evolved into a broader contractual claim, contending that WestJet’s employment agreements promised a workplace free from harassment and that the airline had breached that contractual duty by failing to implement a meaningful, effective program to protect female crew.
In 2022, the B.C. Supreme Court certified the proceeding as a class action, opening the door for thousands of female flight attendants to participate. Certification marked a turning point, shifting the case from an individual dispute to a systemic challenge focused on company-wide policies and practices across WestJet’s domestic and international operations.
Subsequent court rulings revealed tensions over document disclosure. In a decision released in December 2024, Justice Hughes criticized WestJet’s approach to producing internal records, describing it as slow and at times potentially adversarial. She ordered the airline to turn over a broader set of harassment complaints covering an extended time frame, saying the existing production did not appear to reflect the company’s own internal statistics.
Those disclosure battles added months of delay and helped set the stage for the mediation that produced the 4.5 million dollar settlement now before the court. For many flight attendants, the drawn-out legal process has compounded the emotional toll of the underlying allegations.
Transparency Concerns Over Draft and Final Agreements
One of the judge’s sharpest concerns centered on differences between an unofficial draft of the settlement agreement and the final version later sent to class members. An early draft, emailed to flight attendants in mid-January, did not include a key clause releasing WestJet from liability. When a revised, official version was provided with that clause added, some attendants said they felt blindsided.
At the recent hearing, objecting class members argued that this change was not adequately explained and that the short three-day response window made it unrealistic for many workers to consult lawyers or fully understand the far-reaching implications of the release language. Several attendants have since filed formal objections asking the court to reject the settlement or require amendments to its terms.
Justice Hughes pressed counsel on whether the process used to circulate the agreement met the standards of openness and clarity expected in a national class action. The court indicated that when thousands of workers spread across multiple bases and time zones are being asked to give up their rights, any confusion or omission in the communication process weighs heavily against swift approval.
The pause ordered by the court gives class counsel and WestJet’s legal team an opportunity to clarify the settlement terms and address concerns about disclosure. It also opens the door for additional objections, which the court will consider when the matter returns to a Vancouver courtroom in early May.
Flight Attendant Voices and Objections
While the majority of the 3,500 affected attendants have not publicly opposed the settlement, at least eight class members have formally objected, according to court filings. Their concerns range from the size of the payout to questions about whether the agreement will meaningfully change workplace culture at the airline.
Some attendants have described the proposed individual compensation as modest, especially when compared to settlements in other harassment and sexual assault class actions in Canada. Critics note that after legal fees and administrative costs, many women may receive less than 1,000 dollars each, a figure some have publicly called insulting given the gravity of the allegations and the years-long litigation.
Others have focused on the absence of a clear admission of responsibility by WestJet and the perceived lack of robust, enforceable measures to improve reporting systems, investigations and support for those who come forward. Several former crew members have spoken out in media interviews, saying they want the case to result in lasting structural reforms, not just a one-time payment.
For attendants currently flying out of hubs such as Vancouver and Calgary, the proceedings are unfolding against a backdrop of demanding rosters, overnight layovers and the unique power dynamics of cockpit and cabin roles. Many are watching closely to see whether the final version of any agreement includes concrete safeguards that will make their day-to-day working environment feel safer.
Implications for Vancouver, Calgary and Canada’s Aviation Sector
WestJet’s operational footprint in Western Canada gives this case particular resonance in Vancouver and Calgary, where the airline maintains major bases and employs large numbers of cabin crew. The halted settlement review has quickly become a talking point in crew rooms and union offices, where flight attendants are weighing what the outcome might signal for workplace protections in the broader aviation industry.
Legal experts say the court’s insistence on adequate review time and meaningful oversight of anti-harassment policies could influence how future class actions in the travel and tourism sector are structured. Airlines and other large employers in Canada are likely to scrutinize the proceedings for guidance on how far they must go to demonstrate that internal policies are not only written but effectively implemented and independently examined.
For Vancouver International Airport and Calgary International Airport, both key gateways for domestic and transborder travel, the case also underscores how airline employment practices intersect with the passenger experience. Allegations of inadequate harassment protections can affect crew morale and retention, which in turn can shape service quality and operational resilience during peak travel seasons.
Although no findings have yet been made on the merits of the underlying claims, the attention around the settlement has already highlighted the importance of clear reporting channels and a workplace culture that supports employees who raise concerns, particularly in industries where staff regularly work overnight and far from home.
Judicial Focus on Oversight and Behaviour Change
Beyond the dollars and cents, Justice Hughes has emphasized that class proceedings are intended in part to drive behavioural change within organizations. In court, she questioned whether the proposed third-party review of WestJet’s anti-harassment policies would deliver genuine accountability if the airline alone controlled who is hired, how their findings are framed and to what extent recommendations are adopted.
The judge probed whether external oversight should be more clearly defined and more independent, potentially involving regular reporting back to the court or to an agreed monitor, rather than leaving all next steps to the company’s discretion. Her comments suggested that a settlement framed predominantly as a financial compromise, without firm structural commitments, may face a difficult path to approval.
This judicial lens reflects a broader shift in class action practice, where courts are increasingly attentive to how settlements address systemic risks, not just past conduct. In the context of air travel, where crew members operate in confined spaces and under tight hierarchies, robust, credible anti-harassment systems are viewed as a critical component of passenger and employee safety.
Whether the parties return to the court in May with an adjusted proposal or continue to defend the current text, the question of how effectively the agreement promotes lasting change will be central to the final ruling.
Next Steps in a Closely Watched Case
Under the timeline now set by the B.C. Supreme Court, class members have until March 23 to review the settlement documents in detail, obtain independent advice if they wish and file submissions supporting or opposing the agreement. Objections already on the record are expected to be supplemented by further comments from attendants who say they lacked the time or information to weigh in earlier.
The case is scheduled to return to court on May 7, when Justice Hughes will hear final submissions from WestJet, class counsel and any objecting class members. The judge may choose to approve the settlement as proposed, require amendments, or decline to approve it, in which case the litigation could continue toward trial or renewed negotiations.
For the 3,500 women at the heart of the case, the delay extends an already long wait for resolution. Many have spent years reliving difficult experiences, providing evidence and supporting colleagues while continuing to work in a high-pressure travel environment.
Within Canada’s aviation sector, the halted review is being closely monitored as a test of how courts balance the desire to resolve complex workplace disputes efficiently with the need to ensure that employees, especially those in safety-critical roles, are given a meaningful voice in shaping the settlements that govern their rights.