Airlines often assume that if a federal regulator hasn’t drawn a “red line” on a fee, they have a “green light” to charge it. However, WestJet v. Gauthier, 2025 BCCA 134 challenges this assumption, exploring whether silence in federal legislation truly grants a free pass, or whether provincial consumer protection laws can still step in to protect passengers.
The Claim
Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Reaume, passengers with disabilities requiring additional seating on international flights, commenced a proposed class action against WestJet and Air Canada on behalf of non-Quebec residents with disabilities in Canada. They challenged the airlines’ practice of charging per-seat fares for passengers with disabilities on international travel, alleging it was unconscionable under the common law and contrary to British Columbia’s consumer protection legislation. As such, they sought declarations of unjust enrichment, rescission of the contracts that require additional seating fees, damages, and injunctive relief.
The Legislation
Federal legislation: The Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (“AT Regulation”) mandates one-person, one-fare pricing policies (the “1P1F Requirement”) for domestic travel. However, the 1P1F Requirement does not extend to international travel.
Provincial legislation: The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“BPCPA”) focuses on protecting vulnerable consumers and promoting fairness in the consumer marketplace in British Columbia.
The Move
WestJet applied for an order to strike the claim. WestJet argued that the Supreme Court of British Columbia lacks subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the claim was, in substance, a discrimination claim falling outside the Court’s jurisdiction. WestJet further contended that the interpretation of s. 31(2) of the AT Regulation positively entitles airlines to charge per-seat airfares for international travel, making the BPCPA inoperative under the doctrine of federal paramountcy.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed WestJet’s application, and WestJet appealed.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld the decision and dismissed WestJet’s appeal.
WestJet subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. On March 19, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the application for leave to appeal, rendering the Court of Appeal’s decision final.
The Ruling
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia held that it was “not plain and obvious” that the Supreme Court of British Columbia lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In its view, the claim rested on the doctrines of unconscionability and unjust enrichment, rather than on discrimination alone.
On the issue of federal paramountcy, the Court of Appeal emphasized that this doctrine must be construed narrowly, with a preference for interpretations that allow federal and provincial legislation to operate harmoniously rather than in conflict. While WestJet argued that the AT Regulation constituted a positive entitlement to charge additional seating fares on international flights, the Court of Appeal disagreed. Rather, the Court of Appeal held that the AT Regulation’s silence on international seat pricing constituted a permission rather than an entitlement. As such, there was no operational conflict or frustration of purpose: WestJet remained capable of complying with both regimes simultaneously by choosing not to charge the additional fees for extra seating. Because the BPCPA could be respected without violating the AT Regulation and other federal requirements, the Court of Appeal concluded that the provincial and federal legislation could be interpreted harmoniously, and federal paramountcy was not engaged.
The Lesson
WestJet’s position, in essence, was that federal regulations governing international air travel effectively authorized the charge of per-seat fares. But the Court of Appeal refused to treat federal permission as a door that automatically shuts down contract and consumer protection claims. Instead, the Court of Appeal focused on a narrower and more practical question: would applying provincial law make it impossible to comply with the federal scheme, or frustrate its purpose? In the absence of incompatibility, both regimes can operate harmoniously. Courts begin from a presumption of coexistence, not exclusivity.
This case serves as a reminder that federal compliance alone is not always sufficient. Where provincial legislation does not create an operational conflict with, or frustrate the purpose of, the federal scheme, it may impose additional obligations, allowing plaintiffs to pursue claims alongside the federal framework. Therefore, defendants, in turn, must be prepared to litigate on two fronts: demonstrating compliance with federal legislation while considering the applicability of any overlapping provincial requirements in the specific circumstances.
Because the Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to grant leave to appeal opens the possibility that another province could reach a conflicting decision under similar facts, the lesson for businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions is also clear: compliance with a uniform federal regime does not guarantee uniform legal outcomes in different jurisdictions. A “one-size-fits-all” compliance strategy is no longer enough. Legal risk needs to be assessed not only at the federal level but also within each province’s context to reflect local requirements.