CTA Home : Rulings : Decisions : 2006

Decision No. 613-C-A-2006

November 3, 2006

IN THE MATTER OF complaints filed by the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia, the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association, the National Rifle Association of America on behalf of itself and Safari Club International, Noël Poux, James Dewhurst, Lance Stapleton, Bill Jones and Lonny Kennett against Air Canada regarding the terms and conditions governing the handling of firearms.

File Nos. M4370/06-50404
M4370/06-03435
M4370/06-03336
M4370/06-50450
M4370/06-50451
M4370/06-50445
M4370/06-50447
M4370/06-50449

---

[1] Between May 29, 2006 and June 8, 2006, the Canadian Transportation Agency (hereinafter the Agency) received the complaints set out in the title.

[2] In its Decision No. LET-C-A-147-2006 dated June 15, 2006, the Agency requested that Air Canada address the matter within the context of subsection 67.2(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10 (hereinafter the CTA), and sections 111 and 113 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended (hereinafter the ATR), and provide the Agency and the complainants with its answer to the complaints, within thirty (30) days from the date of that Decision. The complainants were provided with ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the carrier's answer to file their respective replies with the Agency and serve a copy on Air Canada. In addition, the Agency, pending its determination of this matter, suspended the charge imposed by Air Canada for the handling of firearms appearing in the carrier's tariffs applicable to transportation between Canada and the United States of America, and between Canada and international points other than in the United States of America (hereinafter the tariffs). Furthermore, the Agency, pending its determination of this matter, does not have jurisdiction to suspend terms and conditions of carriage applicable to domestic service.

[3] Air Canada filed its answer on June 25, 2006. Between July 4, 2006 and July 6, 2006, the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia (hereinafter the GOA), the Newfoundland and Labrador Outfitters Association (hereinafter the NLOA), and the National Rifle Association of America, on behalf of itself and Safari Club International (hereinafter the NRA and the Safari Club) filed their respective replies to the carrier's answer. The other complainants did not reply to Air Canada's answer.

[4] In its Decision No. LET-C-A-234-2006 dated September 8, 2006, the Agency requested Air Canada to provide, within the following ten (10) working days, further information regarding its charge for the handling of firearms such as a financial justification in support of this charge and any other information that Air Canada believed may assist the Agency in assessing the reasonableness of this charge, and the rationale for the change of the quantum of the handling charge, which was initially set at CAD$65/US$65 and subsequently revised to CAD$50/US$50. In addition, with respect to the manner in which Air Canada expresses the handling charge, i.e., the Canadian and U.S. values do not reflect the current exchange rate, Air Canada was requested to explain why the Agency should find the proposed amounts to be reasonable in the circumstances. The complainants were allowed five (5) working days from the date of receipt of Air Canada's response to file a reply with the Agency and concurrently serve a copy on Air Canada.

[5] On September 20, 2006, Air Canada requested an extension until September 30, 2006 to file its response. In its Decision No. LET-C-A-260-2006 dated September 22, 2006, the Agency granted the carrier until September 30, 2006 to file its response with the Agency and to serve a copy on the complainants.

[6] Air Canada filed its response to Decision No. LET-C-A-234-2006 on September 29, 2006, and the complainants did not reply to the carrier's response.

[7] The issues to be addressed are:

1. Whether Air Canada has applied terms and conditions of carriage that are not contained in the carrier's tariffs, contrary to subsection 67(3) of the CTA and subsection 110(4) of the ATR, and

2. Whether Air Canada's terms and conditions contained in its tariffs governing the handling of firearms are inconsistent with subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA, with respect to transportation between points in Canada, and section 111 of the ATR, with respect to transportation between points in Canada and points in the United States of America and between points in Canada and points outside Canada other than in the United States of America.

[8] The GOA submits that the charge for the handling of firearms imposed by Air Canada is without justification and is discriminatory as it affects only hunters and competitive shooters. The GOA notes that Air Canada has carried firearms for passengers since it first began to operate and that it did so without charging any special levy. The GOA asserts that this new charge has nothing to do with safety or additional handling duties but rather has everything to do with trying to generate additional revenue from a select group of air travellers. The GOA submits that the hunters who come to Canada each year contribute significantly to the economy of the country and that because of the handling charge, many of them who have to use Air Canada for transportation to Canada may go elsewhere. The GOA asserts that Air Canada's charge will have a negative impact on many young athletes who are competitive shooters and have to travel by air to prepare for the Biathlon at the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. The GOA also notes that no other major air carrier operating in Canada imposes such a fee on a select group of airline travellers.

[9] The GOA states that it does not understand why Air Canada now requires that the firearms be inhibited from being fired by the use of a secure, locking device mechanism on the weapon, commonly called "a trigger lock". The GOA maintains that many hunters do not use the trigger lock; instead, they remove the bolt from the rifle before packing it in its case and put the bolt in a separate piece of baggage.

[10] The GOA argues that the Firearms Act, S.C., 1995, c. 39, the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, SOR/2000-111, and the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, do not require the steps followed by Air Canada in its handling of firearms and do not classify firearms as dangerous goods. As such, the GOA questions Air Canada's assertion that the carrier's procedures were prompted by legal requirements. In this regard, the GOA wonders whether Air Canada was in violation of these requirements prior to the introduction of the new procedures.

[11] The NLOA submits that Air Canada's charge for the handling of firearms is unjustified as the size and weight of firearms in cases qualify under the free baggage allowance of the carrier. Furthermore, the NLOA does not understand why Air Canada categorizes firearms as dangerous goods because they are not considered as such under federal legislation and regulations. The NLOA maintains that Air Canada has overstated its procedures in an effort to justify the handling charge, and that these procedures are not required by legislation or by regulation. The NLOA notes that regulatory requirements governing the carriage of non-restricted firearms also apply to other carriers, such as WestJet, but that these carriers have not elected to assess a handling charge.

[12] The NLOA also submits that the charge is discriminatory to firearm users as it directly targets a segment of the travelling public, penalizing this group based on the pretense that firearms are dangerous goods. The NLOA argues that the charge is even more discriminatory for hunters from the United States of America as they would have to pay US$50 while all other travellers would have to pay CAD$50.

[13] The NRA and the Safari Club assert that Air Canada's charge appears to be arbitrary and capricious and note that other air carriers serving the same markets as Air Canada do not impose a "handling" charge for firearms. The NRA and the Safari Club add that the new charge will have a detrimental impact on hunters, competitive shooters, guide outfitters and many others who travel with firearms, including Olympic athletes competing in the Biathlon at the 2010 Olympics. The NRA and the Safari Club maintain that Air Canada has singled out only firearms for excessive handling and a charge, while golf and ski equipment, which pose similar logistical hurdles and equivalent material danger to a firearm, are not subject to such procedures or charge.

[14] The NRA and the Safari Club submit that none of the procedures followed by Air Canada in handling firearms are mandated by legislation, and question, in response to Air Canada's argument that the procedures were put in place to respect legislative requirements, the length of time it took Air Canada to adopt procedures to satisfy these alleged requirements.

[15] Mr. Poux submits that the Air Canada charge for the handling of firearms is discriminatory, particularly with respect to residents of the United States of America who come to Canada to hunt. Mr. Poux notes that Air Canada does not assess handling charges for golf and ski equipment, which also requires special handling.

[16] Mr. Dewhurst submits that the charge imposed by Air Canada to transport firearms is excessive considering the relative size of most gun cases and the fact that other items such as golf clubs are not subject to extra charges. Mr. Dewhurst adds that he would like the charge to be reduced to a nominal fee or be eliminated entirely.

[17] Mr. Stapleton finds the charge to be discriminatory given that such a charge is not assessed for similar baggage, and that a higher rate is charged for travellers originating in the United States of America.

[18] Mr. Jones protests Air Canada's singling out hunters/shooters to apply a handling charge for the carriage of weapons, and is of the opinion that this "tax is ill-hidden" and "is only done to line the pockets of the executives of Air Canada".

[19] Mr. Kennett submits that the charge imposed by Air Canada for the handling of firearms is unjustified and discriminatory, and states that it "is nothing but a cash grab".

[20] Air Canada submits that the subject charge is neither unreasonable nor unduly discriminatory as it applies to all passengers who wish to check firearms.

[21] Air Canada maintains that the carriage of firearms requires special handling that is not required for other baggage. This special handling includes the following:

- the passenger and baggage must be handled at a "Special Services" counter

- verification is required to ensure that firearms are correctly packaged and that they contain no ammunition or that ammunition is packaged and carried separately

- the completion of the "Carriage of Firearms" and "Limited Liability Release" forms

- "Ammunition" stickers must be placed on all applicable baggage

- a notification must be sent to Load Control to inform them that firearms are being carried

- firearms must be separately x-rayed before being placed on the baggage belt

- firearms cannot be container-loaded with regular baggage and must be loaded onto the aircraft last

- on arrival, firearms are again handled separately and delivered on the oversize baggage belt

- logs and records of all transit must be completed and kept

[22] Air Canada argues that these procedures add significant complexity to the handling of firearms that is not common to the handling of regular baggage, and that, in large airports, the situation is compounded by the considerable distance covered by staff to implement the carrier's procedures. Air Canada submits that, in certain stations in Europe, the local regulations impose additional steps on the handling of firearms as checked luggage, such as, for example, the requirement for Air Canada to retain the services of a third party provider for this purpose, which adds extra costs.

[23] Air Canada adds that it has implemented measures to streamline and optimize the efficiency of its check-in process such as to check in via Air Canada's Web site or self-service kiosks, but all of these technological advances cannot be used when passengers check in firearms, as careful monitoring and handling have to be undertaken.

[24] Air Canada asserts that firearms are dangerous goods and that their carriage is governed by the Firearms Act, the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations and the Criminal Code of Canada.

[25] In its response to Decision No. LET-C-A-234-2006, Air Canada reiterates that the handling of firearms as checked baggage requires additional procedures that are not required for other baggage and that these procedures are more complex than those applied to the handling of other sporting goods such as surfboards. As such, Air Canada has determined that the most appropriate recognition of this extra complexity is the application of a manual handling charge to the carriage of firearms. In support of this charge, Air Canada provides the following approximate cost breakdown respecting the handling of firearms:

[26] Air Canada submits that the handling of firearms in the United Kingdom had to be given to an outside firm, which charges GBP30 per movement for each case containing firearms. Air Canada indicates that a movement is defined as one passenger travelling with firearms per flight segment.

[27] With respect to the reduction of the handling charge from CAD$65/US$65 to CAD$50/US$50, Air Canada submits that the initial charge of CAD$65/US$65 was in line with the cost assessed by the outside vendor in the United Kingdom, but a revision of the average costs levied at Canadian and international stations led to the decision to reduce the charge.

[28] With respect to the fact that the Canadian and U.S. values of the handling charge are not reflective of the current exchange rate, Air Canada submits that at the time the charge was set, the Canadian Dollar was unusually strong against the U.S. Dollar, and the carrier wanted to examine the trend in the rate of exchange before reviewing all of the charges that it displays in both rates. Air Canada submits that it intends to review the currency exchange rate for the handling charge, as well as other charges.

[29] The Agency's jurisdiction over complaints concerning domestic tariffs is set out in sections 67, 67.1 and 67.2 of the CTA.

[30] Subsection 67(3) of the CTA provides:

The holder of a domestic licence shall not apply any fare, rate, charge or term or condition of carriage applicable to the domestic service it offers unless the fare, rate, charge, term or condition is set out in a tariff that has been published or displayed under subsection (1) and is in effect.

[31] Section 67.1 of the CTA provides:

If, on complaint in writing to the Agency by any person or on its own motion, the Agency finds that, contrary to subsection 67(3), the holder of a domestic licence has applied a fare, rate, charge or term or condition of carriage applicable to the domestic service it offers that is not set out in its tariffs, the Agency may order the licensee to

(a) apply a fare, rate, charge or term or condition of carriage that is set out in its tariffs;

(b) compensate any person adversely affected for any expenses they incurred as a result of the licensee's failure to apply a fare, rate or term or condition of carriage that was set out in its tariffs; and

(c) take any appropriate corrective measures.

[32] Subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA provides:

If, on complaint in writing to the Agency by any person, the Agency finds that the holder of a domestic licence has applied terms or conditions of carriage applicable to the domestic service it offers that are unreasonable or unduly discriminatory, the Agency may suspend or disallow those terms or conditions and substitute other terms or conditions in their place.

[33] The Agency's jurisdiction over the present matter in respect of international carriage is set out in subsection 110(4) and sections 111 and 113 of the ATR.

[34] Subsection 110(4) of the ATR provides:

Where a tariff is filed containing the date of publication and the effective date and is consistent with these Regulations and any orders of the Agency, the tolls and terms and conditions of carriage in the tariff shall, unless they are rejected, disallowed or suspended by the Agency or unless they are replaced by a new tariff, take effect on the date stated in the tariff, and the air carrier shall on and after that date charge the tolls and apply the terms and conditions of carriage specified in the tariff.

[35] Section 111 of the ATR provides:

(1) All tolls and terms and conditions of carriage, including free and reduced rate transportation, that are established by an air carrier shall be just and reasonable and shall, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions and with respect to all traffic of the same description, be applied equally to all that traffic.

(2) No air carrier shall, in respect of tolls or the terms and conditions of carriage,

(a) make any unjust discrimination against any person or other air carrier;

(b) give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favour of any person or other air carrier in any respect whatever; or

(c) subject any person or other air carrier or any description of traffic to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatever.

(3) The Agency may determine whether traffic is to be, is or has been carried under substantially similar circumstances and conditions and whether, in any case, there is or has been unjust discrimination or undue or unreasonable preference or advantage, or prejudice or disadvantage, within the meaning of this section, or whether in any case the air carrier has complied with the provisions of this section or section 110.

[36] Furthermore, if the Agency finds that the air carrier has contravened section 111 of the ATR, the Agency may, pursuant to section 113 of the ATR:

(a) suspend any tariff or portion of a tariff that appears not to conform with subsections 110(3) to (5) or section 111 or 112, or disallow any tariff or portion of a tariff that does not conform with any of those provisions; and

(b) establish and substitute another tariff or portion thereof for any tariff or portion thereof disallowed under paragraph (a).

[37] Rule 195 (Conditions and charges for acceptance of special items) of the Air Canada tariffs governing travel between points in Canada, and between points in Canada and points in the United States of America, namely the Canadian Domestic General Rules Tariff and the Canadian General Rules Tariff, respectively, in effect when the complaints were filed, provide in part as follows:

(S) SPORTING EQUIPMENT

(5) Shooting Equipment (Sporting Firearms)

Items of shooting equipment will be accepted only as checked baggage subject to the conditions and charges specified below. (For the purpose of this provision one item of shooting equipment is defined as (1) one rifle case containing not more than two rifles, with or without scopes, 10 lbs. of ammunition, shooting mat, noise suppressors, and small rifle tools; (2) two shotguns and two shotgun cases and 10 lbs. of ammunition; or (3) one pistol case containing not more than five pistols, noise suppressors, one pistol telescope, and small pistol tools.)

(a) Conditions of Acceptance

(i) Firearms must be unloaded and placed in a suitable container.

(ii) Advance arrangements must be made.

(iii) Small arms ammunition under 11 lbs. must be packed in the manufacturers original package. Ammunition with explosive or incendiary projectiles will not be accepted. The ammunition shall be packaged in a strong outside container made of wood, metal or fiberboard. Ammunition inside container must be protected against shock and secured against movement.

(b) Charges

(1) Firearms will be included in determining the free baggage allowance, and when in excess, each item will be subject to the excess baggage charge for a single piece, whether or not presented as a single piece.

(2) In addition to the charges mentioned in paragraph (b)(1), there will be an additional handling charge of CAD$50/US$50 per item.

[38] Rule 117 (Baggage Regulations) and Rule 118 (Baggage Regulations) of the Air Canada tariff governing travel between points in Canada and points outside Canada, except in the United States of America, namely the International Passenger Rules and Fares Tariff, in effect when the complaints were filed, provide in part that:

Rule 117 BAGGAGE REGULATIONS

(O) FREE BAGGAGE ALLOWANCE

...

(4) (a) The following articles irrespective of their actual dimensions may be considered as a piece of baggage at 62 inches (158 cm):

....

(ix) sporting firearms consisting of not more than one rifle case containing not more than two rifles, 5 kgs. (11 lbs.) of ammunition, one shooting mat, noise suppressor and small rifle tools, or two shotguns and two shotgun cases, or one pistol case containing not more than five pistols, 5 kgs. (11 lbs.) of ammunition, noise suppressors, one pistol telescope and small pistol tools. A handling fee of CAD$50/US$50D per item will be charged when traveling with firearms.

Rule 118 BAGGAGE REGULATIONS

(D) DANGEROUS, DAMAGEABLE OR UNSUITABLE BAGGAGE

Passengers must not include in checked baggage items which are likely to endanger the aircraft, persons or property, which are likely to be damaged by air carriage or which are unsuitably packed or which items by their particular nature (Fragile, Perishable, Valuable) the carrier does not agree to carry. If the weight, size or character of the baggage renders it unsuitable for carriage on the aircraft, carrier may, prior to, or any stage of the journey, refuse to carry the baggage or any portion thereof. The following items will be carried as baggage only after prior consent of and arrangement with the carrier, with exceptions to the acceptance of certain items clearly indicated:

(1) Firearms of any description, except those for sport purposes will not be carried when accompanying the passenger. Firearms for sport purposes will be carried when accompanying the passenger, provided that entry permits are in the possession of the passenger for the country or countries of transit and destination, and provided that such firearms are disassembled or packed in a suitable case designed for the shipping of such items: (Does not include standard carrying case or any container provided by the carrier). A handling fee of CAD$50/US$50 per item will be charged when travelling with firearms.

[39] In making its findings, the Agency has considered all of the evidence submitted by the parties during the pleadings.

[40] With respect to the definition of firearms as "dangerous goods", the Agency finds that this is not relevant to its consideration as to whether the terms and conditions of carriage set out in Air Canada's tariffs are unreasonable or unduly or unjustly discriminatory.

[41] Subsection 67(3) of the CTA provides:

The holder of a domestic licence shall not apply any fare, rate, charge or term or condition of carriage applicable to the domestic service it offers unless the fare, rate, charge, term or condition is set out in a tariff that has been published or displayed under subsection (1) and is in effect.

[42] Subsection 110(4) of the ATR provides:

Where a tariff is filed containing the date of publication and the effective date and is consistent with these Regulations and any orders of the Agency, the tolls and terms and conditions of carriage in the tariff shall, unless they are rejected, disallowed or suspended by the Agency or unless they are replaced by a new tariff, take effect on the date stated in the tariff, and the air carrier shall on and after that date charge the tolls and apply the terms and conditions of carriage specified in the tariff.

[43] The Agency notes that the evidence on file indicates that certain requirements for the carriage of firearms applied by Air Canada, specifically, the requirement that firearms be inhibited from being fired by using a secure, locking device mechanism on the weapon, commonly called the "trigger lock", do not appear in the carrier's tariffs, contrary to subsection 67(3) of the CTA and subsection 110(4) of the ATR.

[44] The Agency notes that while the terminology used in subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR is not identical, it broadly refers to the issue of unreasonable or undue discrimination. Therefore, the words "unreasonable or unduly discriminatory" used in subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA encompass and capture the meaning of the terms used in section 111 of the ATR.

[45] In its Decision No. 666-C-A-2001 dated December 24, 2001 relating to a complaint filed by Del Anderson, the Agency had an opportunity to examine the scope of the word "unreasonable" found in subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA.

[46] Further, in Decision No. 746-C-A-2005 dated December 23, 2005 relating to a complaint filed by Robert Black, the Agency stated that in determining whether a term or condition of carriage applied by a carrier is "unreasonable" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR, the Agency must ensure that it does not interpret the provision in such a way that impairs or jeopardizes the ability of the travelling public to efficiently use the recourse put in place by Parliament to protect it against the unilateral setting of terms and conditions of carriage by air carriers. The Agency is of the opinion that the same applies in this case.

[47] Conversely, the CTA dictates that the Agency must also take into account:

1. the operational and commercial obligations of the particular air carrier that is the subject of the complaint;

2. the other consumer protection provisions found under Part II of the CTA which compel air carriers to publish, display or make available for public inspection tariffs that contain the information required by the ATR and only apply the terms and conditions of carriage set out in those tariffs; and

3. the fact that air carriers are required to establish and apply terms and conditions of carriage designed to apply collectively to all passengers as opposed to one particular passenger.

[48] The Agency is therefore of the opinion that in order to determine whether a term or condition of carriage applied by a carrier is "unreasonable" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR, a balance must be struck between the rights of the passengers to be subject to reasonable terms and conditions of carriage, and the particular air carrier's statutory, commercial and operational obligations.

[49] The Agency is of the opinion that, generally, air carriers should have the flexibility to establish their terms and conditions of carriage and to price their services as they see fit, subject to legislative or regulatory constraints.

[50] Further, when a complaint is filed with the Agency, the complainant has the burden of providing evidence to the Agency that the air carrier has applied a term or condition of carriage that is "unreasonable or unduly discriminatory" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR.

[51] In light of the submissions filed by Air Canada, the Agency accepts that the carriage of firearms requires additional and special handling procedures that are unique to such carriage, and that these procedures are presumed to be reasonable given that such procedures flow from legislative requirements, i.e., the Firearms Act and the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations. The procedures implemented by Air Canada require, among other matters, that firearms be handled at a "Special Services" counter, that the firearms be inspected to ensure that they contain no ammunition, that certain forms be completed, that certain parties be notified that firearms are being carried, that firearms cannot be loaded with regular baggage, and that logs and records relating to the carriage of firearms must be maintained.

[52] The Agency has examined the justification filed by Air Canada in support of its handling charge of CAD$50/US$50, and finds such justification to be convincing.

[53] The Agency also finds that the complainants have failed to present any significant evidence that demonstrates that a balance has not been struck between the rights of passengers to be subject to reasonable terms and conditions of carriage and Air Canada's statutory, commercial and operational obligations. Given the existence of the legislative and regulatory requirements favouring the establishment of the terms and conditions applied by Air Canada, and the complainants' failure to discharge the burden of proof that Air Canada's terms and conditions governing the carriage of firearms contained in its tariffs are unreasonable, the Agency finds that such terms and conditions are not "unreasonable" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR.

[54] In light of the foregoing, the Agency finds that Air Canada's terms and conditions governing the handling of firearms are not "unreasonable" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR.

[55] With respect to the fact that the Canadian and U.S. values of the handling charge are not reflective of the current exchange rate, the Agency notes Air Canada's stated intention to review the currency exchange of the firearms handling charge, as well as other charges. The Agency will monitor this particular issue.

[56] As with the word "unreasonable", the phrases "unduly discriminatory" and "unjustly discriminatory" are not defined in the CTA or the ATR. In its Decision Nos. 666-C-A-2001 and 746-C-A-2005, the Agency also had an opportunity to examine the scope of the words "unduly discriminatory" found in subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and "unjustly discriminatory" found in section 111 of the ATR.

[57] In those Decisions, the Agency stated that, in determining whether a term or condition of carriage applied by a carrier is "unduly discriminatory" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA or "unjustly discriminatory" within the meaning of section 111 of the ATR, it must adopt a contextual approach which balances the rights of the travelling public not to be subject to terms and conditions of carriage that are discriminatory, with the statutory, operational and commercial obligations of air carriers operating in Canada. This position is also in harmony with the national transportation policy found in section 5 of the CTA. The Agency is of the opinion that the same applies in this case.

[58] The first question for the Agency to consider in determining whether a term or condition of carriage applied by an air carrier is "unduly discriminatory" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA, or "unjustly discriminatory" within the meaning of section 111 of the ATR, is whether the term or condition of carriage is discriminatory.

[59] A term or condition would be discriminatory if it singled out a particular category of traffic for different treatment for reasons that could not be justified. In the present case, given that Air Canada's terms and conditions governing the handling of firearms apply equally to all passengers carrying firearms, the Agency finds that there is no evidence before it to suggest that such provisions are discriminatory or that the provisions have been applied in a discriminatory manner.

[60] Given the Agency's finding that Air Canada's terms and conditions governing the handling of firearms are not "discriminatory" within the meaning of subsection 67.2(1) of the CTA and section 111 of the ATR, the Agency need not examine the question of whether such provisions are "unduly discriminatory" or "unjustly discriminatory".

[61] In light of the foregoing, the Agency hereby:

1. orders Air Canada, pursuant to section 26 of the CTA, to amend its tariffs, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Decision, to include all of the terms and conditions governing Air Canada's carriage of firearms, thereby respecting subsection 67(3) of the CTA and subsection 110(4) of the ATR.

2. dismisses the complaints. In view of this dismissal, the Agency hereby rescinds the suspension of the tariff provisions relating to the Air Canada charge for the handling of firearms, as set out in Decision No. LET-C-A-147-2006 dated June 15, 2006.

Members

• Guy Delisle
• Baljinder Gill
• Beaton Tulk