by Jen Mallia
Last updated: 9:55 AM ET, Fri July 10, 2026
A clause requiring passengers who receive compensation following an Air Passenger Protection Regulation (APPR) complaint to keep it confidential has been ruled a violation of charter rights . An Ontario Supreme Court judge ruled that the requirement goes against Canadians’ right to free expression.
In the ruling, Justice Charles Hackland said there was no evidence the confidentiality requirement "is necessary or required to achieve efficiency in the adjudication process or to prevent the release of confidential information," contrary to the federal government's position.
Under the established Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) complaint resolution framework, passengers were barred from publicly disclosing the result of adjudication unless both parties (the passenger and the airline) agreed to waive confidentiality.
The constitutional challenge was launched by advocacy group Air Passenger Rights last year. Gabor Lukacs, president of the group, had claimed the confidentiality rules amounted to a "gag order" that violates freedom of expression, accusing the airlines of not wanting "their dirty laundry in the open," according to the CBC.
The federal government’s position was that barring discussion of complaints formed a reasonable limit on freedom of expression.
The court disagreed with the government's reasoning, stating the regulator is violating Canada's open court principle when it enforces the confidentiality rule by refusing to release decisions, orders or other complaint-related documents upon request, including to the media.
Earlier in the proceedings, airlines argued that they should be granted intervener status in the case. The airlines submitted arguments that complaint cases involve submissions with sensitive information that could undermine carriers' commercial interests and create privacy risks for passengers and employees.
They also claimed it could compromise safety, as employees may be reticent to expose problems that could result in passenger payouts. Those arguments were rejected by the court in March and airlines were not permitted to act as interveners in the case.
Representatives for Canada’s largest airlines expressed concern with the ruling. "Although we are reviewing the court's decision, it is unfortunate that airlines were not granted leave to participate in this case, as their participation would have allowed the court to consider a fuller evidentiary record," Jeff Morrison, CEO of the National Airlines Council of Canada told the CBC.
Lukacs was pleased with the ruling, saying it would empower passengers to speak up publicly and add transparency to the complaint process.
"What this is also going to create is a more level playing field,” says Lukacs. “It's not only airlines that have to know how those matters are being handled, but also passengers, and we who advocate for passengers."
Topics From This Article to Explore
