The Victoria-to-Toronto flight returned to the terminal and missed the airport’s overnight runway closure after the safety issue delayed departure.
VICTORIA, British Columbia — A Porter Airlines flight to Toronto was canceled after a young child repeatedly could not be secured in a seat before takeoff, forcing the aircraft back to the terminal and delaying departure beyond Victoria International Airport’s overnight runway closure.
The disruption happened Thursday, Aug. 6, after the aircraft had left the terminal and was heading toward the runway. Porter Airlines said the child was standing in the seat without a secured seat belt. The parent and cabin crew made repeated efforts to seat and buckle the child, but those attempts were unsuccessful. The airline said the aircraft could not safely take off under those conditions.
The crew decided to return to the terminal so the child and accompanying parent could leave the aircraft. Porter also had to remove their baggage and complete paperwork connected to the change in passengers. The process took enough time that the flight could no longer depart before the airport’s 12:30 a.m. runway closure, according to the airline and published reports.
The remaining passengers were then required to leave the plane because the Toronto-bound flight could not operate that night. Porter apologized for the disruption and said the travelers were rebooked on a flight the following day. The carrier did not publicly identify the child or parent, and reliable reports did not establish the child’s exact age.
Brad Cicero, a spokesperson for Porter Airlines, said the child’s parent and members of the cabin crew had tried to secure the child before the aircraft returned to the terminal. He said the airline’s decision was based on an unsafe condition that prevented the plane from taking off. Porter later apologized for the effect the cancellation had on other passengers.
Passenger accounts offered additional context about what happened inside the cabin. Aryeh Kozuch told news organizations that the child appeared frightened rather than deliberately disruptive. He said the child repeatedly tried to hide under the seat and slipped away when attempts were made to secure them. His account pushed back against some online descriptions portraying the episode simply as unruly behavior.
Another passenger, Hillary Hertzberg, criticized the amount of time taken to resolve the situation. She told CBC, in comments later reported by other outlets, that passengers had already been aboard for close to an hour before the child left the aircraft. She said she believed Porter should address costs incurred by travelers because of the cancellation. Porter had not publicly announced compensation beyond rebooking in the reports reviewed.
The incident drew wider attention because a problem involving one passenger ultimately affected an entire flight. Porter’s explanation focused on the safety requirement that passengers be properly secured for departure and on the operational consequences of returning to the terminal. The airline did not accuse the family of intentionally causing the cancellation or suggest that the parent had refused to cooperate.
Published accounts identified the flight as Porter flight PD444. It had been scheduled to travel from Victoria International Airport to Toronto. Reports said its original departure was scheduled for late Thursday night, leaving a limited period to resolve the seating problem, return to the terminal, remove the travelers and baggage, complete the required paperwork and depart before the overnight runway closure.
The cancellation resulted from that combination of safety and timing issues rather than an emergency after takeoff. The aircraft never departed Victoria with the child unsecured, and no injuries were reported in connection with the incident. Passengers who remained affected by the cancellation were able to travel on a replacement flight the following day.
As of Wednesday, Porter had not publicly announced additional action involving the child or parent. The airline’s account continued to describe the decision to return to the terminal as a safety measure, while passenger accounts emphasized that the child appeared distressed during the episode.
Author note: Last updated August 12, 2026.