August 15, 2017 – Decision fuels debate over flight attendant ratio and passenger safety

Download Télécharger

TOP STORY

Canada (Transport) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2017 FCA 164

Appeal of Judicial Review – Minister appealed granting of judicial review of ministerial approval for Sunwing to change emergency procedures in Flight Attendant Manual – Standard of reasonableness – Risk assessment required to support requested change cursory and not provided to Safety Inspector – No analysis or reasons given by Safety Inspector – No evidentiary basis that safety was not compromised by requested change – No reasonable basis for Safety Inspector decision – Dismissed with costs of $3,000

Decision appealed: – Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canada (Transport), 2016 FC 120 

 

DECISIONS

  • Claim – Unjust Dismissal – Bilesky v. Fox Flight Inc., [2017] C.L.A.D. No. 151
    Director of Maintenance terminated shortly after submitting overtime claim under Canada Labour Code (CLC) – Overtime claim dismissed on basis that employee exercised managerial functions – Unjust dismissal complaint heard together with appeal of decision on overtime claim – Jurisdictional determination of whether employee was a “manager” under CLC – Employee recognized by Transport Canada as person responsible for maintenance of an Approved Maintenance Organization – Managerial autonomy not compromised by tightly regulated environment – Compensation and hours of work also indicative of managerial functions – Employee found to be a manager therefore excluded from unjust dismissal and overtime provisions of CLC – Dismissed on jurisdictional grounds
  • Claim – Procurement – Definition of “Canadian Supplier” – Leonardo S.p.A. v. Department of Public Works and Government Services, [2017] C.I.T.T. No. 65
    Complainant alleged PWGSC contract for fixed-wing search and rescue aircrafts was awarded to Airbus in breach of evaluation criteria and of Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT) – PWGSC and Airbus argued Leonardo did not have standing to bring complaint under AIT – Determination of whether Leonardo has a place of business in Canada to qualify as a “Canadian supplier” – Complainant’s bid included several sub-contractors some of which were wholly owned subsidiaries with offices in Canada – AIT a domestic trade agreement and transaction between PWGSC and Complainant would be international trade – Complainant did not have standing to pursue complaint under AIT – Dismissed without costs
  • Rights under easement – Fredericton International Airport Authority Inc. v. O’Toole, 2017 NBQB 125
    Airport granted easement by Defendant with right to remove any natural growth so as not to penetrate into the approach surface – Easement incorporated definition of approach surface as horizontal line with 2% slope – Airport purported to cut below 2% slope to ensure compliance for the following 2 years – Unambiguous language of easement – Airport allowed to cut growth to 2% slope but no lower
  • Claim – Profit sharing – Behuncik v Kooiman, 2017 ABQB 483
    Parties jointly designed, developed and sold innovations for Rotorway helicopters and eventually sold the intellectual property and remaining stock – Issue arose as to the net profit realized over the seven years the parties were in business – Complainant entitled to $204,946.24

 

CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DECISIONS

  • Application – Gulf & Caribbean Cargo, Inc. c.o.b. as Gulf & Caribbean Air and as IFL Group – Order No. 2017-A-121
    Exemptions from the application of paragraph 33.1(b), section 33.2 and subsection 34(1) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88‑58, as amended
  • Application – Comlux Aruba N.V.Order No. 2017-A-120
    Exemptions from paragraph 33.1(b), subparagraph 73(2)(c)(i) and section 33.2 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended
  • Application – “Airline” “Ukraine-AirAlliance” Private Joint Stock Company c.o.b. as PJSC “UAA” – Order No. 2017-A-122
    Exemptions from certain provisions of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended
  • Application – Société Air France c.o.b. as Air France Determination No. A-2017-121
    Pursuant to subsection 78(2) and section 60 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended, and section 8.2 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended
  • Application – Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de C.V. c.o.b. as AeroMexico and El Al Israel Airlines Ltd. Determination No. A-2017-120
    Pursuant to section 60 of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended, and section 8.2 of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58, as amended
  • Application – Wing Aviation Charter Services LLC of Houston, Texas, United States of America – Determination No. A-2017-119
    Pursuant to subsection 73(2) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended
  • Application – Air 7, LLC of Arlington, Texas, United States of America – Determination No. A-2017-118
    Pursuant to subsection 73(2) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended
  • Application – “Airline” “Ukraine-AirAlliance” Private Joint Stock Company c.o.b. as PJSC “UAA” – Determination No. A-2017-117
    Pursuant to subsection 73(2) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C., 1996, c. 10, as amended
  • Letter Decision – Air Transat A.T. Inc. c.o.b. as Air Transat Letter Decision No. LET-A-49-2017
    Tarmac delays

 

TC/TSB NEWS

 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION NEWS

 

UNION NEWS

 

AVIATION MEDIA