The following are links to the above Decision and its Appendix, as well as links to related guidance recently updated to reflect the Canadian Transportation Agency's decision:

• Decision No. 122-C-A-2021
• Types and Categories of Flight Disruption: A Guide
• Communicating Key Information to Passengers: A Guide
• Flight Delays and Cancellations: A Guide

We have included those highlighted interpretations to the pdf guidance documents attached.

The decision sets out the CTA's interpretations regarding certain matters relating to the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150 (APPR). Airlines are strongly encouraged to apply the interpretations set out in the decision when applicable to existing and future passenger requests for compensation for inconvenience and other complaints.

For your information, summaries of the CTA's interpretations are set out below:

• Paragraph 13(1)(a) requires carriers to take reasonable efforts to provide the reason for a flight disruption in sufficient detail for passengers to understand the reason given and how this reason caused the flight disruption.
• Subsection 19(4) requires carriers to provide passengers with sufficient information in the explanation provided when rejecting a request for compensation for the passenger to decide whether they wish to challenge the carrier’s rejection of their request.
• The primary reason, or most significant contributing factor, is the appropriate test to determine the categorization of a flight disruption with multiple contributing reasons.
• In categorizing a flight disruption caused by a crew shortage, the circumstances surrounding the crew shortage must be considered, including, but not limited to, factors such as the categorization of the events that caused the crew shortage, and whether the carrier has prepared and implemented reasonable contingency plans.
• In categorizing a flight disruption involving a computer issue or network outage, the surrounding circumstances should be considered, including, but not limited to, whether the carrier exercises control over the impacted system; whether the issue or outage is the result of a cyberattack; if the carrier exercises control over the impacted system, whether it took reasonable measures to prevent the outage or issue; and how the carrier has responded to the outage or issue, including whether the carrier has prepared and implemented reasonable contingency plans.
• When determining whether a passenger delayed by multiple flight disruptions during their itinerary is entitled to compensation for inconvenience under section 19 of the APPR, it is necessary to take into account all of the flights involved in the delay to the arrival of the passenger’s flight at the destination indicated on their original ticket, and to determine the primary reason, or most significant contributing factor, of the overall delay.
• Regular maintenance planned in compliance with legislative or regulatory requirements, where an aircraft is pulled from service, constitutes “scheduled maintenance” within the meaning of the definitions found in subsection 1(1), but scheduled maintenance does not include unforeseeable issues identified during pre- or post-flight checks.
• When determining whether a carrier took all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of an earlier flight delay or cancellation, as required by subsections 10(2) or 11(2) of the APPR, the circumstances surrounding the knock-on effect must be considered, including, but not limited to, the duration of the knock-on effect; the remoteness of the location, and whether it is in a foreign country; the availability of another aircraft or crew; and the impact of the cause of the flight delay or cancellation on the operations of the carrier.