B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered WestJet Airlines to reimburse a family $1,826 after their flight from Hawaii to Vancouver was diverted to Victoria due to volcano smoke issues.
RA, SB, and MB (their names are anonymized to protect a child’s identity) purchased WestJet tickets for a flight from Hawaii to Vancouver.
Instead, they landed in Victoria late in the evening on April 13, 2023, tribunal member Peter Mennie said in his Sept. 17 decision.
The family said WestJet agreed to pay for their hotel, travel and food costs caused by the flight change.
They said WestJet only reimbursed part of their costs and that the company agreed to refund their flights, but now refuses to pay.
WestJet said reimbursement for hotel, travel and food costs is limited by its policies.
“It says that it is only required to refund the unused portion of the applicants’ tickets which it calculates at $16.17,” Mennie said.
Mennie said the points at issue were whether WestJet owed the family $430.80 for their hotel, travel, and food costs and $1,395.18 as a refund for their flights.
The family said a WestJet employee on the plane told them to go to the WestJet desk in the airport because hotel rooms were reserved for families with young children.
Then, they said, a second WestJet employee arrived and told them there were no hotel rooms so they should book their own accommodation.
“The second WestJet employee told the applicants that WestJet would reimburse their hotel, travel, and food expenses,” Mennie said. “The applicants found a hotel and paid $784.90 for their room, meals, and taxis.”
Then, WestJet emailed the family later that night about alternate travel arrangements to Vancouver.
“WestJet’s email offered the applicants three choices: take a flight at 12 p.m. from Victoria to Vancouver, choose a different flight, or request a refund for the flight-only itinerary booked with WestJet,” Minnie said.
The family chose the third option and requested a refund.
“WestJet sent the applicants an email confirming that the refund request was being processed,” Mennie said
WestJet reimbursed the applicants $354.10 for their hotel, travel, and food costs, but denied the full amount because its policies limit the amount of reimbursement.
The family said they followed up multiple times with WestJet about the flight refund and received contradictory responses.
“Eventually a WestJet employee told the applicants that their refund was not approved,” Mennie said.
The decision
As far as the unused portion of the tickets went, Mennie said, “I find that WestJet’s email offered to refund the full cost of the applicants’ flights.”
Mennie said the airline offered several options and the family chose a refund.
“In doing so, the [family] gave up their right to a second flight,” Minnie said. “This was a detriment to the applicants and a benefit to WestJet which no longer had to fly the applicants to Vancouver. I find that this was good consideration which makes WestJet’s refund offer enforceable.”
He ordered WestJet to pay the applicants $1,395.18 for the flights.
For hotel, food and travel costs, Mennie ordered WestJet to pay a further $430.80.
In a recent decision by B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal, WestJet Airlines was ordered to reimburse a family $1,826 after their flight from Hawaii to Vancouver was diverted to Victoria. The diversion was due to volcanic smoke issues in April 2023. Tribunal member Peter Mennie provided his ruling on September 17, detailing the dispute between the family, anonymized as RA, SB, and MB to protect a child’s identity, and WestJet over compensation for hotel, food, travel costs, and a refund for their flights.
The family had purchased tickets for a direct flight from Hawaii to Vancouver but found themselves landing in Victoria late in the evening on April 13, 2023. As a result of this unplanned landing, the family incurred additional expenses for accommodation, transportation, and meals. According to the family, WestJet initially agreed to cover these expenses and also to refund their flight. However, they later encountered difficulties in securing full compensation.
WestJet’s Partial Reimbursement
After landing in Victoria, the family claimed that a WestJet employee on the flight directed them to the airline’s desk at the airport, where they were told hotel rooms had been reserved for families with young children. However, upon arriving at the desk, a second WestJet employee informed them that no hotel rooms were available, and they were advised to book their own accommodation. The family followed this advice, securing a hotel room and covering the cost of their meals and taxi rides, which totaled $784.90.
Later that evening, WestJet sent the family an email detailing alternate travel arrangements to Vancouver. The email outlined three options: they could take a flight at noon the following day from Victoria to Vancouver, select a different flight, or request a refund for the unused portion of their flight. The family opted for a refund and subsequently received an email confirmation from WestJet stating that their refund request was being processed.
However, despite this confirmation, the family was only partially reimbursed for their expenses. WestJet refunded $354.10 to cover their hotel, food, and travel costs but did not pay the full amount. According to the airline, its policies impose limits on reimbursement for such expenses, and they calculated the remaining unused portion of the flight as worth just $16.17. The family, dissatisfied with this response, pursued the matter further through the Civil Resolution Tribunal, claiming that WestJet had initially agreed to a full refund for their flights and full coverage of their additional expenses.
The Tribunal’s Findings
Peter Mennie, the tribunal member overseeing the case, reviewed the conflicting accounts from both parties. The central issues he addressed were whether WestJet was obligated to pay the family $430.80 for their outstanding hotel, travel, and food expenses, and whether the airline was required to refund the family $1,395.18 for their unused flight.
Mennie ultimately sided with the family, finding that WestJet’s email had offered a full refund of the applicants’ flights. He determined that when the family chose to request a refund rather than wait for a second flight, they effectively gave up their right to further travel with the airline. This decision, according to Mennie, constituted a detriment to the family and a benefit to WestJet, which no longer had to arrange for their travel to Vancouver. As a result, he ruled that the refund offer was enforceable.
Mennie ordered WestJet to pay the family $1,395.18 for the flight portion of their claim. He also found in favor of the family concerning their hotel, food, and travel expenses, ruling that WestJet was liable to reimburse them an additional $430.80, covering the remaining costs they had incurred.
The Family’s Frustration with WestJet’s Responses
Throughout the ordeal, the family expressed frustration with the airline’s inconsistent responses. After WestJet initially confirmed that their refund request was being processed, the family followed up multiple times but received conflicting information. At one point, they were informed that their refund had not been approved, despite earlier communication suggesting otherwise.
This lack of clarity and communication from WestJet contributed to the family’s decision to take the matter to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. Mennie’s ruling acknowledged the confusion and inconvenience caused to the family, particularly in light of WestJet’s failure to provide consistent information or honor its original commitments.
A Broader Look at Airline Compensation Policies
This case raises broader questions about airline compensation policies and how they are communicated to passengers. Many airlines, including WestJet, have specific guidelines regarding what they will reimburse in the event of delays, cancellations, or diversions. These policies often set limits on how much passengers can claim for expenses like accommodation, meals, and transportation, even in situations where the airline is responsible for the disruption.
In this case, WestJet argued that its policies limited the amount it could reimburse the family for their hotel, food, and travel costs. However, the family contended that they were promised full reimbursement by WestJet employees and that the airline’s later refusal to pay contradicted this assurance.
The tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of clear communication between airlines and their passengers, especially in situations where travel plans are disrupted. Passengers must often make quick decisions about accommodation and alternate travel arrangements, relying on the information provided by airline staff. If that information is unclear or later contradicted, it can lead to disputes like the one resolved by the Civil Resolution Tribunal in this case.
The tribunal’s ruling in favor of the family underscores the need for airlines to honor their commitments and provide consistent, transparent information to passengers when travel disruptions occur. In this case, the family’s decision to pursue compensation through the Civil Resolution Tribunal proved successful, resulting in a total reimbursement of $1,826 from WestJet. While this decision may offer some relief to the family, it also serves as a reminder to travelers of the importance of documenting communication with airlines and understanding their rights when flights are delayed, diverted, or canceled.