Small pets could soon be banished from passenger cabins in Canada after the government agency overseeing consumer complaints ruled Thursday that some customers suffering from a cat allergy are disabled and must be accommodated.

The Canadian Transportation Agency ruled that the three complainants are in effect persons with disabilities because the pet policies at Air Canada and WestJet Airlines Ltd. -- allowing cats in aircraft cabins -- impact on their ability to fly. However, the agency stopped short of telling the airlines to change their policies or to bar cats or other small pets from aircraft cabins. Instead, the agency will now determine "appropriate accommodation" for the allergic passengers.

"Should the agency find that an obstacle exists, it will assess whether the obstacle is undue," according to the newly released decision. The tribunal did not say how long it will take to determine "next steps." Initially, "for reasons of efficiency and in the public interest," the agency is seeking an agreement from the airlines and the complainants to expand the scope of its investigation to include a review of policies related to small dogs as well as cats.

Spokesmen for WestJet and Air Canada on Thursday said the airlines will submit briefs to the agency after reviewing the decision. One of the complainants, Dr. David Spence of London, Ont., is already clear on how he wants the matter resolved.

"The issue here is that people can die from an asthmatic attack, so it's not reasonable to allow people to bring their little kitty cat on the plane just because they think it's nice," Spence, a neurologist and director of the stroke prevention research centre at the Robarts Research Institute, said Thursday.

All airlines are required by federal regulation to allow service animals, such as guide dogs, to travel in passenger cabins, but regular pets like cats are not afforded the same treatment.

In the case of Air Canada, the airline kicked cats and other small pets out of the passenger cabin in September 2006, a decision upheld by the agency in response to a consumer complaint. But Air Canada then reversed its position after facing a barrage of criticism from pet owners, who had the option to travel with their small pets on West-Jet flights.

Like Air Canada, the Calgary-based airline allows up to four small dogs, cats, birds or rabbits to travel in the passenger cabin on every flight.

At WestJet, three out of four flights do not have a pet on it, and in cases where there is a pet on board, the average number is one, according to the airline. Overall, WestJet flew 21 million passengers and 50,000 pets over a recent 18-month period.

Meanwhile, the airline has fielded 158 complaints on the subject of pets in general, including complaints about allergies, noise and philosophical opposition to the idea. Air Canada says it has received three complaints about pets and allergies. The airlines unsuccessfully argued there was a lack of evidence that the passengers in questions -- Spence, Katherine Covell and Sarah Daviau -- experienced allergic reactions while travelling with pets in the aircraft cabin. As a result, Air Canada and WestJet said there was insufficient evidence to establish that they are persons with disabilities for the purposes of the federal transportation network.

Air Canada also alleged that there is no evidence that the applicants faced obstacles to their mobility. Rather, the only allegation is there is a general risk of allowing pets in the aircraft cabin and that potentially problems can occur.

"All we have is speculation," Air Canada asserted in its submission. To establish their disability, the complainants had to prove that they have impairment, as well as provide evidence of an activity limitation and a participation restriction in accessing air travel. This is the second allergy-related disability ruling against Air Canada this year. In January, the tribunal issued a directive to Air Canada to create a nut-free "buffer zone" on flights to accommodate passengers with serious nut allergies in response to applications by two passengers. The agency ruled the passengers in question are considered persons with a disability, so the airline must lift any obstacles to their mobility through a formal policy.