Lawyers for one of Canada’s biggest airlines were in a B.C. court on Monday, arguing against an injunction ahead of a future trial over its reimbursement policy.
Consumer advocacy group Air Passenger Rights has taken WestJet to court, fighting what it claims is a deceptive reimbursement policy.
At issue is how much WestJet says passengers can claim in reimbursement after being stranded due to events within the airline’s control, and when the airline does not provide vouchers.
Until recently, the company’s website said domestic passengers could claim up to $150 a night and international passengers could claim up to $200 a night for hotels. It also said passengers could claim $45 a day for meals.
Air Passenger Rights said no such limits exist under the law, and while WestJet has removed the language from its website, the group wants the court to grant an injunction preventing WestJet from using the policy in direct conversations with customers.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
“We would like to make sure that WestJet is not going to put back the information (on its website), that they are going to publicize the fact that this proceeding is ongoing, email passengers about the need for them to seek the information, and also ask that WestJet should be enjoined from communicating the deceptive information by individual emails to passengers,” Air Passenger Rights president Gabor Lukacs said.
WestJet lawyer Michael Dery told a B.C. court on Monday an injunction is not necessary.
“These guidelines, these webpages, these communications are no longer occurring,” he said.
Air Passenger Rights disagrees, and has filed an affidavit it says shows the company continued to cite the policy in emails with customers.
Dery told the court an injunction would be premature and should not be issued before facts have been argued and settled in a civil trial scheduled for January 2026.
But Lucaks said that’s exactly why the injunction is necessary.
“The purpose of an interlocutory injunction is just to preserve the status quo, it is not to have one winner or another,” he said.
“It’s just a situation where you don’t want people to lose rights just because of the passage of time.”
The B.C. Supreme Court judge has reserved his decision for a future date.
© 2024 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.
