Canada’s aviation regulator has already fined Air Canada over accessibility failures and ordered airlines to change how they accommodate passengers using mobility aids. Yet wheelchair users are still taking airlines to court. That apparent contradiction is becoming harder to ignore as a newly certified class action against Air Canadaargues that regulatory penalties alone have not provided the accountability or remedy passengers are seeking.

At the center of the dispute is Rodney Hodgins, a British Columbia wheelchair user with spastic cerebral palsy, alongside decisions involving Air Canada’s aircraft selection and WestJet’s restrictions on heavier mobility aids. The Canadian Transportation Agency can investigate complaints, impose penalties, and order changes, while the courts can consider broader civil claims and remedies. The question is where regulatory enforcement ends, and airline responsibility begins when accessibility problems are embedded in the operation itself.

When Regulatory Action Still Leaves A Legal Gap

Credit: Deanna Hodgins

The Canadian Transportation Agency has already intervened in several disputes over accessible air travel. It can investigate passenger complaints, determine whether an airline has created an undue barrier, impose administrative monetary penalties, and order carriers to change practices. Those responsibilities form part of Canada’s broader passenger-protection framework, which has expanded the rights available to travelers when air transportation does not go as planned.

Air Canada received a C$97,500 CTA penalty in December 2023 over the handling of Hodgins after his arrival in Las Vegas, following a separate C$52,500 penalty weeks earlier involving priority boarding for a passenger with a disability and the delayed return of a mobility aid. The agency’s intervention did not end the wider dispute, because Hodgins’ lawsuit seeks a civil remedy on behalf of a defined group of passengers who allege they were affected by broader failures in Air Canada’s policies, procedures and assistance.

That distinction becomes more significant when accessibility moves beyond the passenger assistance process and into the physical operation of an aircraft. If the aircraft assigned to a route cannot accommodate a passenger’s mobility device, the issue is no longer simply whether assistance was provided correctly. It becomes a question of whether the airline has selected an aircraft capable of carrying the passenger in the first place.

When Aircraft Choice Becomes An Accessibility Decision

Credit: Karolis Kavolelis | Shutterstock

Air Canada’s obligations can extend beyond airport assistance because, in some circumstances, the aircraft itself can create the barrier. That was the issue in Timothy Rose’s long-running case, which centered on whether an airline could continue assigning an aircraft to a route when its cargo door was too small to accommodate a passenger’s power wheelchair.

Rose’s case eventually reached the Federal Court of Appeal, which in March 2025 upheld the CTA’s ruling. The regulator had determined that Air Canada had not demonstrated undue hardship in accommodating Rose and could require the airline to substitute an aircraft capable of carrying his mobility device when necessary. In practice, that can mean substituting an aircraft with a compatible cargo opening when sufficient advance notice is provided. Changing an aircraft can affect fleet availability, scheduling, crew planning, capacity and the wider operation of a flight, making accessibility part of an airline’s fleet deployment decisions.

But Aircraft substitution is only one piece of the problem. A wheelchair can be small enough to fit through a cargo door and still present another operational challenge once it reaches the aircraft, particularly when its weight exceeds the limits an airline has traditionally applied to mobility aids. That is where WestJet’s dispute introduces a different technical question.

When A Wheelchair Becomes A Loading Problem

Credit: Shutterstock

WestJet’s dispute shows what the accessibility requirement can look like once it reaches the cargo hold. The airline had applied a 300-pound (136 kg) limit on mobility aids on most of its fleet, but the Canadian Transportation Agency found that the restriction created an undue barrier for passengers whose power wheelchairs exceeded that threshold. Rather than treating the weight as an automatic stopping point, the agency’s approach opens the door to an engineering solution that changes how the load is carried.

The proposed answer is a spreader plate, which can distribute the weight of a heavy mobility aid across a larger section of the aircraft cargo floor. That matters because aircraft structures respond not only to the total mass being carried, but also to how that load is concentrated. WestJet has been ordered to remove its 136-kilogram restriction from most of its fleet before July 2027, while the CTA recommended spreader plates as one way of addressing the loading issue. In the interim, the agency also required the airline to rebook affected passengers on other carriers where necessary.

The technical solution, however, does not eliminate the operational challenge. An airline still has to know in advance what mobility device is arriving, whether the assigned aircraft can accommodate it, what loading equipment is available, and whether the necessary procedures can be completed safely. That pushes the issue into a much deeper part of airline planning, where accessibility begins to intersect with the operating system itself.

When Accessibility Reaches The Airline’s Operating System

Credit: 

Shutterstock | Simple Flying

The deeper issue is that accessibility is no longer confined to a passenger service procedure that begins at the gate. It can influence decisions made much earlier, when an airline assigns an aircraft, plans its loading operation, and determines which ground equipment and personnel will be available. A mobility aid therefore has to be treated as an operational requirement throughout the journey, not simply as special baggage that can be accommodated if space happens to be available.

The Rose case demonstrates the point most clearly. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the CTA’s finding that Air Canada had not established undue hardship when it was required to accommodate a power wheelchair that could not pass through the cargo door of the aircraft originally assigned to the journey. WestJet’s 136 kilogram restriction presents a different version of the same problem. Its aircraft must accommodate the mobility aid safely once it is accepted, which is why the CTA’s recommendation for spreader plates focuses on the relationship between the device’s weight and the aircraft’s cargo floor rather than simply its total mass.

The consequence is a significant shift in where accessibility responsibility sits inside an airline. A passenger’s mobility requirement can affect reservations, fleet planning, airport coordination, cargo handling, and aircraft selection before the flight ever reaches the runway. And when those systems fail, the dispute may no longer be limited to whether an individual employee provided adequate assistance. It can become a question of whether the airline designed its operation to accommodate the passenger in the first place.

When Regulatory Compliance May Still Leave Passengers Seeking More

Credit: Transport Canada

The practical consequence is that accessibility increasingly has to be built into the airline’s operation before a passenger arrives at the airport. Air Canada must account for aircraft compatibility when a mobility device cannot pass through a cargo door, while WestJet is being required to reconsider how heavier devices are accepted and loaded. For passengers, that can determine whether a journey proceeds on the booked aircraft, requires a different operating solution, or has to be arranged through another carrier.

WestJet provides a particularly concrete example of how this can affect the travel experience. Its 136-kilogram limit had been a straightforward threshold for determining whether a mobility aid could be accepted on much of the fleet. The CTA’s decision instead requires the airline to remove that restriction from most of its aircraft before July 2027 and recommends measures such as spreader plates to distribute heavier loads. Until the new arrangements are in place, affected passengers may need to be rebooked onto another carrier, turning an aircraft loading limitation into a network and itinerary issue.

What remains unresolved is whether stronger regulatory intervention will ultimately eliminate the gap that has pushed passengers toward civil litigation. The Hodgins class action will have to establish whether Air Canada’s alleged failures were systemic and whether the proposed class is entitled to the remedies it seeks. The broader aviation industry has faced similar tensions between passenger rights, airline practices and legal remedies, including discrimination cases involving US airlines and their passengers. At the same time, WestJet’s July 2027 compliance deadline will provide a real-world test of whether regulatory requirements can be translated into reliable aircraft handling procedures. That leaves the industry facing a final question about whether accessibility can become part of ordinary airline planning rather than something addressed only after a barrier has already appeared.

When Accessibility Becomes A Fleet Planning Decision

Credit: Air Canada

The broader implication reaches beyond any single complaint or airline policy. If accessibility obligations are judged against the realities of aircraft structures and airline operations, carriers may have to treat mobility access as a core planning constraint in the same way they already account for payload, airport compatibility and equipment availability. The dividing line will be whether those requirements can be incorporated into normal fleet planning rather than handled as exceptions after a passenger has already booked.

WestJet’s July 2027 deadline provides one of the clearest tests. Removing the 136-kilogram restriction from most of the fleet will require the airline to translate the CTA’s ruling into aircraft-specific procedures, loading practices and equipment arrangements. Air Canada faces a different test when a power wheelchair cannot pass through an aircraft cargo door, because accommodating the passenger may require an aircraft substitution rather than a ground-handling adjustment. In either case, an accessibility requirement can ultimately affect the passenger’s itinerary, including whether the carrier can operate the booked flight as planned or must arrange alternative transportation, an issue that has become an increasingly important part of Canada’s evolving passenger-rights framework.

What happens next will depend less on whether airlines acknowledge accessibility as a priority and more on whether their systems can consistently accommodate the physical realities of modern aircraft. The Hodgins litigation, Air Canada’s aircraft accommodation practices and WestJet’s implementation of the July 2027 requirement will each provide evidence of how effectively regulatory decisions translate into day-to-day operations. For passengers using mobility aids, the real test will not be found in a policy document or penalty notice, but in whether the aircraft assigned to the journey can actually carry them and their mobility device with the assistance promised.