Federal Court of Appeal Affirms Accessibility Measures in Air Travel

In 2016, Timothy Rose was unable to board an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Cleveland because the aircraft could not accommodate his power wheelchair.

The cargo doors on certain aircraft are just over 2.5 feet high, and many power wheelchair models can only be reduced to a height of about three feet.

Acting on Mr. Rose’s behalf, ARCH Disability Law Centre (ARCH) submitted an application to the Canadian Transportation Agency (“Agency”), asserting his right to accessible transportation and arguing that Air Canada's inability to accommodate his wheelchair constituted an undue obstacle to his mobility.

In August 2023, the Agency finally released a decision ordering Air Canada to make operational changes for services to be more accessible, including substituting planes with larger cargo doors for travelers with larger mobility devices. Air Canada argued, among other things, that this constituted “undue hardship” and put the carrier at a competitive disadvantage.

The Agency’s 2019 Initial Decision

The Agency's initial decision in 2019 recognized Mr. Rose's disability-related needs and identified the obstacles created by Air Canada's operational choices.

[22] … the Agency finds that Mr. Rose encountered an obstacle to his mobility because Air Canada exclusively assigns aircraft that cannot accommodate Mr. Rose’s wheelchair on any of its flights between Toronto and Cleveland, thereby denying Mr. Rose access to this aspect of the federal transportation network.

…

[24] The Agency finds that Air Canada’s decision to operate routes in its network that are only serviced by aircraft that cannot accommodate larger mobility aids that cannot be collapsed to a height of 31 or 32 inches or less creates an obstacle to the mobility of Mr. Rose and all persons who use mobility devices that cannot be carried on these aircraft.

It would take another four years for the Agency to order Air Canada to implement corrective measures to address these barriers. The proceeding was temporarily suspended in 2020 due to the pandemic.

The Agency’s 2023 Final Decision and Appeal

The Agency's decision required Air Canada to accommodate passengers with power wheelchairs that cannot be collapsed to fit the cargo door height of the aircraft scheduled for a flight on a transborder network, provided with at least 10 business days' advance notice. This accommodation could include substituting an accessible aircraft on the chosen route if no other reasonable accommodation was possible. Additionally, Air Canada was ordered to address accessibility for persons with disabilities in its acquisition of aircraft, aircraft selection for transborder routes, and the design of its services under the Accessible Canada Act.

Air Canada appealed the Agency’s decision to the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”), raising several substantive and procedural concerns. The airline argued that the Agency failed to provide adequate notice or an opportunity to respond to certain findings before issuing its decision. It also contended that the Agency’s ruling imposed disproportionate obligations that went beyond the airline’s legal duty to accommodate. The airline asserted that it had already taken reasonable steps to assist passengers with disabilities and that further measures would create undue hardship. It also challenged how the Agency interpreted and applied the Act, particularly whether the ordered accessibility measures were legally required under the Accessible Canada Act. Questions were also raised as to whether the Agency properly assessed evidence, including industry standards and operational constraints related to accommodating power wheelchairs.

The 2025 Federal Court of Appeal Decision

The FCA upheld the Agency's decision, noting that the Agency had considered Air Canada’s argument concerning whether the substitution of an aircraft would result in undue hardship for the airline. The judicial panel pointed out Air Canada admitted that it regularly substitutes aircraft on little or no notice, and it had failed to establish that it would suffer undue hardship if Mr. Rose (or any other person who uses a power wheelchair that cannot fit through the cargo door of the aircraft scheduled for a particular flight) were to provide Air Canada with advance notice of their travel plans and the substitution of the aircraft was the only means by which that person could be accommodated.

Air Canada undermined its own argument that substituting aircraft would constitute an undue hardship by stressing in earlier proceedings that such substitutions would rarely be necessary – effectively conceding that the hardship it cited would arise only in exceptional cases (paras 39 & 42):

In this case, Air Canada argues that the incidence is so low (only Mr. Rose) that it should not be required to accommodate him at all. It implies that if there were greater demand for this accommodation, it might respond through its planning, but that to require it to accommodate only Mr. Rose would be disproportionate and constitute undue hardship.

…

Since the Agency reduced the level of incidence from a “few people” to “rare”, it would be less likely that a substitution of aircraft would result in undue hardship to Air Canada than if the number of incidences where this alternative corrective measure would be required was greater. Since the level of incidence is rare, the additional costs of substituting an aircraft (as identified by Air Canada in its confidential schedule) would only rarely be incurred…

Moreover, the size of Air Canada's enterprise is relevant in assessing its ability to implement the required accommodations.

The FCA also emphasized the importance of the Accessible Canada Act, which mandates that large corporations like Air Canada must factor accessibility into their operations and services

Impact and Significance

The decision in Rose v. Air Canada is a significant victory for persons with disabilities and sets a precedent for future cases involving accessibility in transportation. The ruling will benefit individuals who rely on mobility devices to travel.

Air Canada's compliance with the FCA's ruling will be closely monitored, and the airline will need to demonstrate its commitment to accessibility through tangible actions and improvements in its services. It highlights the need for inclusive practices and signals to other airlines and transportation providers the need to review their policies and practices, and make necessary changes to accommodate passengers with disabilities.