# Canada Supreme court won't hear obesity two-for one seating case vs. Air Canada **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 20, 2008, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720 "2008-11-20T21:37:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/41 "2008-11-21T16:57:37Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > They’ve chosen to use the per passenger approach as a proxy for weight. It would be more accurate to say, as ISOT has, that the per-passenger approach is a proxy for volume. On most routes most of the time, airlines can fill their planes without exceeding weight limits. And the marginal cost of carrying a heavy passenger, while real, is small. The cost of giving a passenger an extra seat is often large. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/42 "2008-11-21T17:03:28Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Changed thread title from “Supreme court rules obese get two airline seats for the price of one” to “Canada Supreme court won’t hear obesity two-for one seating case vs. Air Canada” I commend you for this clear notification (which IMO should be SOP for title changes). ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/43 "2008-11-21T17:52:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > All I can say to that is, I hope you never suffer a health problem that somebody else decides was your fault. I’m a smoker and if I develop lung cancer and need to cart around an iron lung it is certainly my fault. If I’m traveling and need it with me and it takes up another seat I would certainly think I should pay for a second seat. ---
**Author:** ![jacquilynne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jacquilynne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jacquilynne)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/44 "2008-11-21T18:20:00Z")
> [@Xema](#): > > And the marginal cost of carrying a heavy passenger, while real, is small. The cost of giving a passenger an extra seat is often large. It seems to me that Southwest used to have / possibly still has a policy that if the flight isn’t full, that extra seat is free (marginal cost, negligible), but if the flight would be full even without you taking up that extra seat, you have to pay for it. Which seems eminently fair. Though I don’t know how you tell someone they got bumped from a flight because someone else was too fat to be on it. Does the fat person get bumped? Maybe it was that they had to buy two seats but got refunded for one if the flight wasn’t full? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2008, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/45 "2008-11-21T18:57:00Z")
> [@Furious\_Marmot](#): > > What about people who disabled for other reasons? Why no free extra seat for them? Like… Dissociative Personality Disorder? > [@Projammer](#): > > Seems obvious what the airline response will be. Spread the cost of that extra seat across _all_ passengers. That is, of course, precisely what will happen, in the form of increased fares across the board (if not for all passengers on a single plane). > [@Marley23](#): > > All I can say to that is, I hope you never suffer a health problem that somebody else decides was your fault. I promise that if I’m ever stricken with a “health problem” that renders me twice the size of a normal human being, I’ll ensure that my problem doesn’t become everyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Kat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/b19c9b/32.png) [@Kat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kat)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/46 "2008-11-22T02:17:37Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Leaving aside how insulting this sounds with regards to obesity in general, the lawyer who brought the suit is obese as a result of polycystic ovary syndrome. She could starve herself and still be obese. I have PCOS and that’s not so at all. (Not in general, at least. I’m not her doctor, so who am I to say she doesn’t have an atypical case.) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/47 "2008-11-22T02:48:58Z")
The product sold on the aircraft is a combination of space and weight. if a flight is booked by fat people attending a hot dog convention and it’s a narrow body aircraft then the airline will only be able to put one person per bank of 3 seats. so an aircraft with 20 rows will have 40 passengers versus 120 passengers. The Canadian Supreme Court has taken the concept of “disabled” to mean “without financial responsibility”. All that should be accorded is access to seating, which in this case means a folding armrest and extended seat belts. But even this isn’t an absolute. What do you do with [this person](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432901,00.html). He would require 6 seats and 3 of them would have to be removed. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/48 "2008-11-22T03:12:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The Canadian Supreme Court has taken the concept of “disabled” to mean “without financial responsibility”. As discussed upthread, the Canadian Supreme Court has done no such thing. It has not ruled on the legal issues raised by the case. It has simply said that it will not hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/49 "2008-11-22T22:59:45Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > As discussed upthread, the Canadian Supreme Court has done no such thing. It has not ruled on the legal issues raised by the case. It has simply said that it will not hear an appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal on this issue. It has ruled on the legal issues by not addressing them. They have created a defacto rubber stamp. ---
**Author:** ![Annie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Annie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/50 "2008-11-22T23:29:03Z")
Don’t suppose there’s a hope that this could make airlines rethink their chintzy seat size and spacing? No? Shit ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/51 "2008-11-22T23:31:14Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It has ruled on the legal issues by not addressing them. They have created a defacto rubber stamp. Nope. That’s just not a legitimate interpretation of a denial of leave to appeal. The court has discretionary jurisdiction and has declined to exercise it. Courts do this for many reasons, virtually none of which have much to do with approval of the merits of the appealed decision. E.g., > [@](#): > > A variety of considerations underlie denials of the writ, and as to the same petition different reasons may lead different Justices to the same result. This is especially true of petitions for review on writ of certiorari to a State court. Narrowly technical reasons [338 U.S. 912 , 918] may lead to denials. Review may be sought too late; the judgment of the lower court may not be final; it may not be the judgment of a State court of last resort; the decision may be supportable as a matter of State law, not subject to review by this Court, even though the State court also passed on issues of federal law. A decision may satisfy all these technical requirements and yet may commend itself for review to fewer than four members of the Court. Pertinent considerations of judicial policy here come into play. A case may raise an important question but the record may be cloudy. It may be desirable to have different aspects of an issue further illumined by the lower courts. Wise adjudication has its own time for ripening. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=338&invol=912#917](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=338&invol=912#917) Similarly, the SCOTUS’s denial of certiorari in a case is not an approval of the result in a lower court. “Denial of certiorari has no precedential weight whatsoever, and marks no change in the law.” [http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/108/108.F3d.1370.96-7794.html](http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/108/108.F3d.1370.96-7794.html) ; and see Teague v. Lane [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=288:](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=288:) > [@](#): > > As we have often stated, the “ **denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case**.” United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) (Holmes, J.). Accord, Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U.S. 363, 366 , n. 1 (1973); Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 489 -497 (1953). **The “variety of considerations [that] underlie denials of the writ,”** Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U.S. 912, 917 (1950) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.), \*\*counsels against according denials of certiorari any precedential value. \*\*Concomitantly, opinions accompanying the denial of certiorari cannot have the same effect as decisions on the merits. We find that Allen v. Hardy is dispositive, and that petitioner cannot benefit from the rule announced in Batson. (Emphasis added.) ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/52 "2008-11-22T23:36:30Z")
> [@Annie](#): > > Don’t suppose there’s a hope that this could make airlines rethink their chintzy seat size and spacing? No? Shit I sure as hell hope so. I’m 6’5", and while Air Canada isn’t the _worst_ (that was flying from the UK to Ireland where I was fortunate enough to be able to spend the flight sideways due to an empty seat), but they’re not always super-good. If I don’t get an emergency exit row, I know my knees are in for a bashing. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/53 "2008-11-22T23:45:10Z")
Here is the rule on certiorari in the US Supreme Court: > [@](#): > > Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Writ of Certiorari > > Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers: > > ``` > * (a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power; > * (b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals; > * (c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court. > > ``` > > A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. Regarding the practice in Canada: > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court grants leave only in those cases which raise questions of “public” or “national” importance. The Attorney General employs a similar test in determining whether leave should be sought. Hence, it is not enough to say that a decision from which leave to appeal may be sought is wrongly decided: counsel must be able to articulate the “national importance” of the issue(s). Appropriate cases may be, for example, ones which conflict with other appellate decisions, ones raising significant Charter or division of powers questions, or matters raising concerns about the scope of police or Crown powers. [http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/fps-sfp/fpd/ch23.html](http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/fps-sfp/fpd/ch23.html) ---
**Author:** ![dgrdfd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb8c5e/32.png) [@dgrdfd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dgrdfd)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/54 "2008-11-23T00:05:37Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > And yes, that means that on a per pound approach, some lighter passengers are paying more for their fare than others - but that’s already happening. For example, an argument could be made that the current airline approach of a flat fare per passenger is discriminatory against women, as a class, since women on average tend to weigh less than men. Since women , on average, are paying a higher rate per pound than men, should the airlines be required to give discounts on the fare to women, or to men who are under the average male weight? I would bet that if you added up the total sum of the weight that women carry on versus men (including all checked and carry on) that women bring on at least as much weight as men. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/55 "2008-11-23T01:57:52Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It has ruled on the legal issues by not addressing them. They have created a defacto rubber stamp. Nope. See Northern Piper’s post #38:[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10478489&postcount=38](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10478489&postcount=38) ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/56 "2008-11-23T06:48:57Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Nope. See Northern Piper’s post #38:[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10478489&postcount=38](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10478489&postcount=38) I read it, and re-read it. It is still a defacto approval of the court in question. The assumption is that any other lower court that follows the decision will be treated the same and thus perpetuate the law. Unless a provincial court rules against it, the law will stand. To say the Supreme Court imports no expression of opinion is technically accurate. But it still falls to the decision of the lower court. The logic behind the refusal to hear the case is counter to the purpose of the Supreme Court. Earlier post: \*\*The Supreme Court grants leave only in those cases which raise questions of “public” or “national” importance. \*\* IMO, travel by aircraft is (by design) a multi-province/multi-country venture as are any laws regarding the handicap. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/57 "2008-11-23T16:33:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It is still a defacto approval of the court in question. The assumption is that any other lower court that follows the decision will be treated the same and thus perpetuate the law. Not necessarily. The decision is binding precedent for the federal courts and federal tribunals, since it was a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal. But it is not binding precedent for any of the provincial or territorial courts, which are free to reach a different conclusion. And there is no guarantee that if a provincial or territorial court system reaches a different conclusion that the Supreme Court would grant leave. Differences in approach to legal issues, based on the different statutes, is a feature of a federation. > [@Magiver](#): > > Unless a provincial court rules against it, the law will stand. Yes, it will stand, and even if a provincial court of appeal reaches a different conclusion. But that’s because a provincial court of appeal has no power to overrule the Federal Court of Appeal, not because the SCC denied leave. > [@Magiver](#): > > To say the Supreme Court imports no expression of opinion is technically accurate. But it still falls to the decision of the lower court. Quite so - it’s the lower court decision which is the binding statement of law. > [@Magiver](#): > > The logic behind the refusal to hear the case is counter to the purpose of the Supreme Court. Earlier post: \*\*The Supreme Court grants leave only in those cases which raise questions of “public” or “national” importance. \*\* IMO, travel by aircraft is (by design) a multi-province/multi-country venture as are any laws regarding the handicap. Yes, travel by aircraft crosses boundaries. That’s why aeronautics is under exclusive federal jurisdiction. But that isn’t enough to mean that it meets the public importance test set out in the Supreme Court Act. If it were, any case involving aeronautics would automatically go to the SCC. The Court only grants leave to about one hundred cases per year. Part of the assessment of whether to grant leave is by comparison to other cases where leave is sought. Should the Court use its scarce judicial resources for this case? or a case involving a Canadian prisoner at Guantanomo Bay? or a case raising the question of journalistic privilege under the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of the press? or whether a judge properly instructed the jury in a criminal case, leading to the conviction and imprisonment of an individual? It’s not possible to look at one case in isolation and say that it’s clearly so important that the Court should hear it. Also, there’s no ambiguity or disagreement amongst the courts caused by the Federal Court decision. In affirming the transport board ruling, the FCA has said what the law requires in this area. All of the airlines are under federal jurisdiction and know what their obligation is in this situation. The law is settled. Disagreement amongst the lower courts is one of the reasons that the SCC may grant leave. Since the decision of the FCA applies uniformly to all airlines, that factor is absent, which counts against the SCC granting leave at this time. Another factor is that the human rights implications of obesity as a disability have not been thoroughly litigated. It may be that the leave panel of the SCC decided that it would be better to let the lower courts grapple with this issue for a while, to develop trends in the case-law dealing with obesity, to help flesh out issues and common fact patterns, before the SCC deals with the issue. The Court appreciates having the thoughts of the lower courts on a new issue before it deals with it. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/58 "2008-11-23T17:02:30Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > It may be that the leave panel of the SCC decided that it would be better to let the lower courts grapple with this issue for a while, to develop trends in the case-law dealing with obesity, to help flesh out issues and common fact patterns, before the SCC deals with the issue. The Court appreciates having the thoughts of the lower courts on a new issue before it deals with it. So the news title should have read _Obesity: SCC Fleshes Out and Grows_. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/59 "2008-11-23T17:32:51Z")
I think it’s an ok policy. Presumably Canada has some sort of ADA type law which says that businesses must accommodate disabilities unless it’s an undue hardship on the business. Realistically, a small enough percentage of the population is obese that this isn’t going to put any airlines out of business or make fares jump dramatically. And like other people say, thin and average-sized people are arguably better off if obese people get two seats. At the same time, airlines should be given a little leeway to steer their obese customers away from the most heavily booked flights. Actually, an acquaintance of mine told me the other day that an obese friend of his flies to Las Vegas a few times a year and it’s always a bit uncomfortable because this guy cannot fit into the airplane bathroom. If it’s practical, Boeing ought to build a few planes which are handicapped and obese friendly and all the major airlines could put a few of them into service. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2008, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720/60 "2008-11-23T18:04:26Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I read it, and re-read it. It is still a defacto approval of the court in question. The assumption is that any other lower court that follows the decision will be treated the same and thus perpetuate the law. Unless a provincial court rules against it, the law will stand. > > To say the Supreme Court imports no expression of opinion is technically accurate. But it still falls to the decision of the lower court. > > The logic behind the refusal to hear the case is counter to the purpose of the Supreme Court. Earlier post: \*\*The Supreme Court grants leave only in those cases which raise questions of “public” or “national” importance. \*\* IMO, travel by aircraft is (by design) a multi-province/multi-country venture as are any laws regarding the handicap. The question is whether the case raises issues of law of significance great enough to justify a SC hearing. The “issues of national importance” is a judgment call on the significance of the case, not simply on the inter-jurisdictional nature of it. A refusal to hear the matter says nothing whatsoever about the _merits_ of the case - it merely means that, as far as the SC is concerned, it isn’t a case (rightly or wrongly decided) which is important enough to merit a full SC review. Few are - SC resources are limited and the court must carefully choose which cases to take. Your assumption is not correct - the SC could well decide, if the issue keeps getting raised in other contexts by other courts, that the issue is now of sufficient importance to be laid to rest by a conclusive SC decision, particularly if different courts keep comming to conflicting decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canada-supreme-court-wont-hear-obesity-two-for-one-seating-case-vs-air-canada/473720.md?page=4)