View cases - Stewart McKelvey

11[48] I prefer the evidence of Capt. Duke that pilots in Vilven’s situation bid for a positionknowing that they will not be obliged to change their position. Vilven had the best of both worlds.He remained an A340 FO based in Vancouver, was paid at the B747 FO rate for a time andcontinued to supplement his income through drafting and simulator work.[49] Thus, for the purpose of calculating Vilven’s lost wages, the monthly rate should be that ofan A340 FO YVR in effect during the compensation period as determined by the Tribunal.B. Kelly, Calculation Loss of Income and Seniority2010 CHRT 27 (CanLII)[50] For the purpose of determining his loss of income and seniority, Kelly considered thecompensation period to run from May1, 2005 to April 30, 2010. He used the same methodologyas Vilven, first, determining his “proxy” seniority number and then his “proxy” pilot positionassignment for each of the years.(i)Proxy Seniority[51] Kelly retired as an A340 YYZ Captain on May 1, 2005. His seniority number on the AirCanada Pilots’ System Seniority list was 79. However, because of the then ICAO rules, he couldonly fly internationally as a FO and not as a captain until after November 23, 2006. Kelly, atseniority number 79, would have been high on the seniority list and could have held the mostsenior A340 FO YYZ position.[52] For the years 2006 to 2010, in terms of seniority as shown on the Pilots’ System SeniorityList, Kelly considered W.C. Ronan as his benchmark or proxy pilot. Tracking the seniority list forthese years, Kelly’s seniority number would have been one number below Ronan.[53] Next, by reference to the Air Canada Pilot Position Assignment List for those years and onthe basis of his proxy seniority number, Kelly concluded that he would have held the seniority andpositions set out in Appendix II.