Canada’s biggest airlines asked an Ontario court in January 2026 for intervener status to oppose a constitutional challenge to the federal rule that keeps the outcomes of air passenger complaints before the Canadian Transportation Agency confidential unless both the passenger and the airline agree to disclose them.
A filing to defend the gag rule
In a filing made the previous Wednesday, Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat and Jazz Aviation asked to intervene in a case over whether Canadian Transportation Agency decisions on passenger complaints should be open to the public.
Under the complaint resolution process in place since 2023, customers and airlines are barred from publicly disclosing the outcome of complaints on matters ranging from accessible travel to refunds for a cancelled flight — unless both parties agree to waive confidentiality. The rule is written into section 85.09(1) of the Canada Transportation Act, which provides that all matters related to dealing with a complaint “shall be kept confidential” unless the complainant and the carrier agree otherwise.
The advocacy group Air Passenger Rights filed a constitutional challenge in Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice in June 2025, arguing that Canadians should have access to rulings by the quasi-judicial tribunal. Group president Gabor Lukacs claims the confidentiality rules amount to a “gag order” that violates freedom of expression and discourages passengers from spreading the word on what their fellow travellers could be owed.
The airlines’ argument
The airlines argue that complaint cases involve submissions with sensitive information that could undermine carriers’ commercial interests and create privacy risks for passengers and employees. In their written submissions, the carriers said the documents they are required to file in answering complaints can contain sensitive material whose release could raise privacy, safety, commercial, operational and security concerns.
They also warned that removing confidentiality could chill candour: airlines said they approach mediation and settlement on the understanding that discussions stay confidential, and that changing the rule could make them less willing to explore compromise — sending more complaints to adjudication instead of settlement.
Lukacs, for his part, has compared the regime to a black hole that insulates decision-makers from scrutiny. “You cannot imagine a small claims court making a decision confidential,” he has said. “You go and read whatever you want.”
How the fight ended
The airlines’ intervention did not succeed. The court dismissed their request to intervene in March, a decision the National Airlines Council of Canada’s president, Jeff Morrison, said he was disappointed by, arguing the carriers’ participation would have provided a more complete evidentiary record.
The main case was decided on July 9, 2026. In Air Passenger Rights v. Attorney General of Canada (2026 ONSC 3983), Justice Charles Hackland ruled that the blanket confidentiality requirement unjustifiably limits freedom of expression under the Charter and offends the open court principle. He found there was no evidence the 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, and noted that the regulator’s enforcement of the rule meant refusing to release decisions, orders and complaint documents even to the media.
For passengers, the ruling means the outcomes of complaint adjudications — decisions that can determine compensation for delays, cancellations and accessibility failures — are no longer sealed by default.
