APPR Denied Claim: Force the Airline to Justify the Refusal

Overview

Passengers often give up after an airline denies their APPR compensation claim — especially when the airline cites “weather,” “safety,” or “operational reasons” with no further detail. But accepting a vague denial is a mistake.

Under Canada’s Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), when an airline refuses a compensation claim it must:

1. Respond in writing within 30 days of the passenger’s request
2. Provide a fulsome explanation — one containing enough specific information for the passenger to meaningfully challenge the denial

The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed this standard in WestJet v. Lareau (2025 FCA 149), ruling that airlines must “justify to passengers why compensation is not payable based on the application of the standards prescribed.” A boilerplate response saying “your flight was delayed for safety reasons” without supporting details does not meet this standard — and is itself a violation of the APPR.

This means passengers have two separate things to fight: whether compensation was actually owed, and whether the explanation given was legally adequate.

What a Compliant Denial Must Contain

The explanation the airline provides must give you enough information to assess whether the denial is legitimate. A legally adequate denial should specify:

If the airline claims “unexpected maintenance” or “safety”:

• The aircraft’s tail number or serial number
• When the aircraft was assigned to your flight
• When and how the maintenance issue was discovered
• What the specific defect was
• How long the repair took and when the aircraft returned to service

If the airline claims “weather”:

• Which specific aircraft was affected and where
• The exact nature and location of the weather
• When the weather was discovered to affect operations
• Which specific regulatory minimums (e.g., visibility, crosswind limits) could not be met

If the airline claims “knock-on effects” from an earlier disruption:

• Which earlier flight was disrupted and why
• The original aircraft assignment for your flight
• Crew details and how the earlier disruption caused the crew or aircraft to be unavailable
• What contingency resources (spare aircraft, standby crew) were available and why they weren’t used
• What steps the airline took to mitigate the downstream impact

A response that simply says “your flight was cancelled due to operational reasons outside our control” contains none of this — and is a deficient denial under the APPR.

Why This Matters

An inadequate explanation doesn’t just give you grounds to dispute the airline’s reasoning. Under WestJet v. Lareau, the failure to provide a sufficient explanation is an independent breach of the APPR — separate from the question of whether compensation was owed at all.

In practice, this means:

• You can escalate to the CTA for an inadequate explanation even if you’re unsure whether the underlying claim would succeed
• The airline’s failure to explain adequately can support your CTA complaint and strengthen your position
• Airlines that habitually issue deficient denials face regulatory scrutiny

Step-by-Step: What to Do After a Denial

Step 1: Read the denial carefully. Does it contain any of the specific details listed above? If it’s a form letter or a one-line denial, it almost certainly doesn’t comply.

Step 2: Write back demanding a compliant explanation. Send a follow-up to the airline’s complaints or customer relations team. Reference the APPR and WestJet v. Lareau (2025 FCA 149). State that the denial you received does not meet the legal standard and request a revised, complete explanation within 30 days.

Sample language:

“Your response of [DATE] denying my APPR compensation claim does not comply with the Air Passenger Protection Regulations. Under the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in WestJet v. Lareau (2025 FCA 149), carriers must provide passengers with sufficient information to meaningfully challenge a denial — including specific details about [the maintenance defect / weather event / earlier disruption]. Your response contains none of these details. Please provide a compliant explanation within 30 days, or I will escalate this matter to the Canadian Transportation Agency.”

Step 3: File with the CTA if the airline fails to respond or provides another inadequate explanation. File a complaint at otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/air-travel-complaints. In your complaint, include:

• The original claim and the date you submitted it
• The airline’s denial and why it is deficient
• Your follow-up demand and the airline’s response (or non-response)
• The compensation amount you are claiming

The CTA process is free. Reference WestJet v. Lareau in your complaint to put the adjudicator on notice that you are aware of the explanation requirement.

Step 4: Consider small claims court as a parallel path. CTA adjudication can take 12–18 months due to a complaint backlog. Small claims court (provincial, typically $25,000–$35,000 limit) offers a faster path in many provinces, and the FCA ruling can be cited directly as authority. Many passengers pursue both simultaneously.

Connecting This to Your Evidence Strategy

Even if the airline eventually provides more detail, you can challenge that detail with independent evidence:

• FlightAware / Flightradar24: Shows the inbound aircraft’s actual arrival time, route history, and any diversions. If the airline claims the aircraft was grounded at another airport due to weather, flight tracking will show whether that’s accurate.
• Environment Canada historical weather data: climate.weather.gc.ca provides official historical conditions at Canadian airports. You can verify whether actual visibility or wind conditions breached regulatory minimums.
• CTA prior decisions: The CTA publishes adjudication decisions. Searching the airline’s name and claimed reason can surface prior rulings where the same excuse was rejected.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources

• Federal Court of Appeal — WestJet v. Lareau, 2025 FCA 149
• Air Passenger Rights — Refused Compensation: You Are Entitled to an Explanation
• Canadian Transportation Agency — File an Air Travel Complaint
• Air Passenger Protection Regulations (SOR/2019-150)