Case Library / Physical Social Engineering (Tailgating & Baiting) / Air Canada v. WestJet: Curbside Garbage Collection From Co-Founder Mark Hill's Home

Air Canada v. WestJet: Curbside Garbage Collection From Co-Founder Mark Hill's Home

Air Canada admitted in a sworn Ontario Superior Court affidavit that it hired private investigators who twice took trash from outside WestJet co-founder Mark Hill's home (a collection Hill's own affidavit says involved the investigators walking onto his driveway, a claim IPSA disputed) and had shredded documents digitally reconstructed by a Houston forensic firm, as part of its corporate-espionage suit against WestJet, a fight that ended in a CAD 15.5 million WestJet settlement and public apology.

Share:

Reviewed by the Social Engineering Examples team.

What Happened

In 2003, WestJet management, centered on co-founder and VP of Strategic Planning Mark Hill, had been covertly logging into a password-protected Air Canada employee website to download proprietary flight-load and revenue data, using it to inform WestJet's own capacity and scheduling decisions. When Air Canada detected the intrusion in early 2004, it sued WestJet in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (filed/announced in early April 2004; contemporaneous reporting places this on April 6, 2004, though a later Globe and Mail report says April 7) alleging corporate espionage, and simultaneously ran a private, physical investigation to identify and build evidence against the individual(s) responsible. As part of that investigation, Air Canada, through its law firm Lerners LLP, hired private investigation firm IPSA International Inc. IPSA director Jasper Smith and colleague David Wiggs traveled to Mark Hill's home in Victoria, B.C. and, on March 22 and April 5, 2004, collected the contents of his garbage and recycling bins, later sorting the material away from the property; Smith's affidavit says this was done from the curbside without trespass, but Hill's own affidavit says the men walked onto his driveway to take the bins, and WestJet/Hill's countersuit alleged unlawful trespass, a dispute never resolved at trial. Shredded and fragmentary paper recovered from the trash was sent first to a document-reconstruction firm in Ottawa and then, when that firm couldn't handle the volume, to Church Street Technology in Houston, Texas, which digitally scanned and reconstructed the shredded pages and returned images on CD. Air Canada disclosed all of this for the first time in a sworn affidavit filed with the Ontario court, made public in reporting on June 30, 2004. WestJet responded with a countersuit alleging unlawful seizure of confidential financial information (draft budgets, expense reports, compensation-committee material) and revealed that Hill, upon suspecting surveillance, had planted a fake "TOP SECRET!!!!" WestJet business plan in his own trash as bait. The dispute also involved a separate Air Canada-hired human-surveillance operation: a contracted former RCMP staff sergeant, Robert Stenhouse, posing under the alias "Rob Stanaus" as a fake CSIS-experienced "international corporate intelligence" consultant, sat next to Hill on a commercial flight to observe him working with confidential Air Canada data. The matter was settled on May 29, 2006, with WestJet publicly apologizing and paying a combined CAD 15.5 million (CAD 5.5M in Air Canada's costs plus a CAD 10M charitable donation).

How the Attack Worked

Air Canada suspected WestJet management (centered on co-founder and VP of Strategic Planning Mark Hill) of covertly logging into Air Canada's password-protected internal employee website ("Skybook"/employee travel portal) to pull confidential flight-load and revenue-management data, then using it to plan competing capacity. To build a case, Air Canada's outside law firm, Lerners LLP, retained private investigation firm IPSA International Inc. IPSA's Vancouver-based director of investigations, Jasper Smith, together with fellow IPSA investigator David Wiggs (both named alongside IPSA in the Ontario Superior Court case caption) and other IPSA employees, traveled to Hill's residence in Victoria, B.C. and, on March 22 and April 5, 2004, collected the contents of his garbage/recycling bins into their truck, telling an inquisitive neighbour they were Oak Bay municipal employees, and sorted the material afterward off-site. Smith swore in his affidavit that they did not trespass onto Hill's property, took only bins already at curbside, and discarded anything that looked purely personal or irrelevant; but this is a disputed account, not a settled fact: Mark Hill's own affidavit states the men "got out of the truck and walked onto my driveway and wheeled away my recycling and garbage bins," and WestJet/Hill's countersuit formally alleged the investigators "unlawfully and surreptitiously entered onto Hill's property... and seized documents"; this factual dispute was never resolved by trial. Recovered shredded and fragmentary paper documents were first sent to a firm in Ottawa, Forensic Document Examination Services, which found it could not handle the reconstruction and referred the material to Church Street Technology of Houston, Texas, a specialist in digitally scanning and reconstructing shredded documents; Smith personally delivered the material to Houston (April 7, 2004, per contemporaneous reporting) and received reconstructed images back on CDs. In parallel, Air Canada also ran a physical human-surveillance operation: a contracted former RCMP staff sergeant, Robert Stenhouse (arranged by IPSA managing director Kim Marsh, a former RCMP colleague who had taught Stenhouse on an undercover course), was seated next to Hill on a March 2004 Air Canada flight to Florida. Stenhouse introduced himself under the alias "Rob Stanaus," falsely claiming six years' experience as a Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) agent and presenting himself as a specialist in "international corporate intelligence" with a firm called Eclectic Solutions Inc. (not, as previously stated here, as a fellow airline-industry traveler), in order to draw Hill into conversation and observe him working with confidential Air Canada load-factor data during the flight.

The Lure & the Tell

There was no deceptive "lure" aimed at Hill personally for the trash collection itself; it was pure physical surveillance/collection, not a social-engineering pretext against the victim directly, though the investigators reportedly told an inquisitive neighbour they were Oak Bay municipal employees collecting garbage, a minor deceptive cover story aimed at a bystander rather than Hill. Whether the collection method itself crossed into trespass is a disputed, not settled, fact: IPSA investigator Jasper Smith's affidavit claims the bins were taken only from curbside without trespassing, while Hill's own affidavit says the men "walked onto my driveway" to wheel the bins away, and WestJet/Hill's countersuit formally alleged the investigators "unlawfully and surreptitiously entered onto Hill's property," an issue the eventual settlement never adjudicated. The closest thing to a "tell" cuts both ways: (1) the operation was only exposed to the public and to WestJet because Air Canada itself had to disclose it in a sworn affidavit filed with the Ontario Superior Court (filed by IPSA's Jasper Smith) as part of the underlying corporate-espionage lawsuit, a first-party litigation admission, not a leak or investigative unmasking (though Hill also personally caught the investigators mid-collection, photographed them, and confronted them at the time); (2) once Mark Hill grew suspicious he was under surveillance, he planted a bogus "WestJet Business Plan" document stamped "TOP SECRET!!!!" in his own trash as bait, which Air Canada's side later took and treated as genuine intelligence, giving WestJet a concrete, provable instance of the spying for its countersuit.

Outcome

WestJet's countersuit and the public disclosure of the garbage collection and in-flight surveillance operations turned Air Canada's corporate-espionage case into a mutual-embarrassment scandal for both airlines. The dispute (Air Canada et al. v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. et al., Ontario Superior Court of Justice) proceeded through injunction hearings and dueling affidavits through 2004-2006 without ever reaching a full trial verdict on the underlying espionage claims or on the disputed trespass allegations. On May 29, 2006, the companies issued a joint press release (filed as a U.S. SEC exhibit by Air Canada's parent, ACE Aviation Holdings) in which WestJet accepted full responsibility, apologized unreservedly to Air Canada and its CEO Robert Milton, agreed to pay CAD 5.5 million toward Air Canada's investigation/litigation costs, and made a CAD 10 million donation to Canadian children's charities in both companies' names. Air Canada in turn withdrew its claims and all legal proceedings were terminated. No criminal charges were laid against either side over the trash collection, the shredded-document reconstruction, or the in-flight surveillance; the matter was resolved entirely as a civil settlement, leaving the curbside-vs-trespass factual dispute permanently unresolved.

Why It Matters

This is a rare case where dumpster diving as a corporate-espionage/counter-espionage technique is admitted under oath in open civil court rather than merely alleged, giving researchers an unusually well-documented, if factually contested, account of tradecraft (garbage collection method, chain of custody to a specialized document-reconstruction vendor, and the competing legal theories over curbside pickup versus driveway trespass, which the settlement left unresolved). It also illustrates that dumpster diving is not just a low-budget attacker's tool: a Fortune-500-scale corporation (Air Canada, then emerging from bankruptcy protection) commissioned professional private investigators and a specialized forensic-reconstruction firm against a specific named executive's home, showing the technique's use in high-stakes B2B/competitive-intelligence contexts, not just against consumers or low-level targets. The parallel in-flight operation additionally shows classic pretexting tradecraft (a fabricated identity, false CSIS credentials, and a plausible-sounding cover firm used to draw a target into an unguarded conversation) being professionally deployed by one Fortune-500 company against a named competitor executive. The case also demonstrates a defensive countermeasure, planting decoy/bait documents, used by the victim once surveillance was suspected.

Defenses

Shred sensitive documents with a cross-cut/micro-cut shredder before disposal (Air Canada's investigators were still able to reconstruct "shredded or fragmentary documents," showing basic strip shredding is not sufficient against a determined, funded adversary); do not rely on curbside placement for privacy: in most Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions, once trash is genuinely placed at the curb for collection it loses a reasonable expectation of privacy and can be lawfully taken by third parties; note, however, that whether that legal cover actually applied here is a disputed, not a resolved, fact; IPSA investigator Jasper Smith swore in his affidavit that his team took only bins already at curbside and did not trespass, but Mark Hill's own affidavit states the men "got out of the truck and walked onto my driveway and wheeled away my recycling and garbage bins to their truck," and WestJet/Hill's countersuit formally alleged the investigators "unlawfully and surreptitiously entered onto Hill's property... and seized documents"; the case settled before trial, so the curbside-vs-driveway/trespass question was never judicially decided, and it should not be read as an established legal safe harbor; executives handling competitively sensitive material should treat home trash disposal as a corporate-security surface, not just an office one: burn bags, off-site pulverization, or contracted secure destruction for sensitive personal/work overlap documents; corporate counter-intelligence awareness: Hill's own countermove (planting a fake "TOP SECRET!!!!" WestJet business plan in his trash as bait once he suspected surveillance) illustrates that once dumpster diving/surveillance is suspected, canary/decoy documents can help confirm and later prove it evidentially; organizations should have policies restricting private investigators' methods (including bans on impersonating municipal or utility workers to bystanders, which investigators here were accused of doing to a neighbor) and requiring legal sign-off, since even the commissioning company (Air Canada) ended up admitting the underlying conduct in court and issuing a costly apology.

Sources
  • News Release dated May 29, 2006 (WestJet and Air Canada joint press release). U.S. SEC EDGAR filing (ACE Aviation Holdings Inc. exhibit 99.1) Primary. Primary-source settlement text: CAD 5.5M costs + CAD 10M charity donation, WestJet's apology to Air Canada and Robert Milton, termination of all legal proceedings.
  • Air Canada et al. v. WestJet Airlines Ltd. et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1092 (SC). Ontario Superior Court of Justice (hosted via vLex) Primary. Court decision in the underlying litigation referencing the affidavits and factums.
  • Air Canada sifted WestJet garbage. The Globe and Mail Secondary. June 30, 2004 report detailing the Jasper Smith/IPSA affidavit: exact dates (March 22 and April 5, 2004), Mark Hill's Victoria residence, Forensic Document Examination Services and Church Street Technology of Houston; also the source of the 'suit launched April 7' date, which conflicts with other contemporaneous reporting.
  • Bitter air carrier dogfight heads to court. The Globe and Mail Secondary. July 8, 2004 report quoting Mark Hill's own affidavit describing investigators walking onto his driveway to take the bins, and WestJet/Hill's countersuit language alleging investigators 'unlawfully and surreptitiously entered onto Hill's property', the primary basis for treating the trespass/curbside question as disputed rather than settled.
  • WestJet alleges Air Canada scavenged highly sensitive data. The Globe and Mail Secondary. July 22, 2004 report on WestJet's allegations of what was actually recovered from the trash, and Hill's planted decoy 'TOP SECRET' business plan.
  • WestJet admits to spying. The Globe and Mail Secondary. Coverage of the May 29, 2006 settlement and apology.
  • The gumshoe and his target at 30,000 feet. The Globe and Mail Secondary. December 6, 2006 investigative feature detailing the parallel in-flight surveillance of Mark Hill by investigator Robert Stenhouse under the alias 'Rob Stanaus' (falsely claiming ex-CSIS background, posing as an 'international corporate intelligence' consultant with Eclectic Solutions Inc.); also names David Wiggs alongside Jasper Smith as the two IPSA investigators who removed Hill's trash on March 22, 2004, and gives April 6, 2004 as the lawsuit-filing date.
Attack Chain & Defense
The sequence the attacker ran
How it could have been stopped
1
Reconnaissance and suspect identification: Air Canada's corporate security received an internal whistleblower tip (a WestJet employee reportedly saw Air Canada data on a colleague's screen) and, per contemporaneous reporting, traced repeated unauthorized logins to its password-protected employee website back to a residential internet connection in the Victoria area, then cross-referenced Air Canada passenger manifests to place Mark Hill on a specific outbound flight, treating him as its primary suspect.
Countering Stage 1: Tracing a known intrusion back to a likely suspect via server logs, ISP records, and passenger manifests is standard, lawful investigative practice; there is no realistic control against being investigated once an organization has evidence it has been breached, so the practical countermeasures start at the point where the investigation's methods themselves become the risk (Stages 3 onward).
2
Retention of professional investigative resources: Air Canada's outside counsel, Lerners LLP, retained a licensed private investigation firm, IPSA International, to build a fuller profile of Hill (home address, routine, upcoming travel) and plan both a physical surveillance/collection operation and a human-intelligence approach.
Countering Stage 2: A target typically has no visibility into being profiled by a licensed investigative firm acting for a counterparty's counsel; the more realistic lever is legal and contractual, organizations engaging outside investigators should set clear, counsel-approved limits on permissible methods up front, since the lack of that oversight here is part of what turned into a costly admission for Air Canada.
3
Pretext development for the in-flight approach: IPSA arranged for a contracted former RCMP investigator to adopt a fabricated persona, a false name, an invented multi-year background with Canada's intelligence service, a fictitious corporate-intelligence consulting firm, and matching fake business cards, and had him seated directly next to Hill on a booked flight, consistent with classic pretexting tradecraft.
Countering Stage 3: Fabricated professional personas and invented credentials are difficult to verify in the moment; general executive security-awareness training that treats unsolicited seatmates or acquaintances who quickly steer conversation toward one's employer and role with justified skepticism reduces (without eliminating) the chance this stage succeeds.
4
Execution of the in-flight social-engineering approach: the investigator struck up an unsolicited conversation with Hill mid-flight, used the fabricated credentials and cover story to build rapport and draw Hill into discussing his work, and covertly observed and recorded Hill entering confidential Air Canada flight-load data into his laptop while seated beside him.
Countering Stage 4: Working on confidential, competitively sensitive data on a laptop in a public or semi-public setting (a commercial flight, in this case) is the concrete point of failure; privacy screens, deferring sensitive analysis to secure settings, and policies discouraging handling market-sensitive material in transit directly counter this stage.
5
Physical collection via dumpster diving: on two separate occasions, IPSA investigators traveled to Hill's residence and removed the contents of his curbside garbage and recycling bins, using a minor cover story (posing as municipal workers) when questioned by a neighbor, and sorted the collected material off-site afterward.
Countering Stage 5: Treat household trash disposal as a corporate-security surface for any executive who regularly handles sensitive material at home; cross-cut/micro-cut shredding, burn bags, or contracted secure destruction remove the raw material this stage depends on.
6
Forensic exploitation of the collected material: shredded and fragmentary paper recovered from the trash was routed to a document-reconstruction firm and, when that firm couldn't handle the volume, on to a specialist digital-reconstruction vendor, which scanned and reassembled the shredded pages into usable document images.
Countering Stage 6: Basic strip-cut shredding, as used here, was not sufficient against a funded adversary willing to pay for specialist digital reconstruction; finer-particle cross-cut/micro-cut shredding or certified off-site destruction defeats the reconstruction technique documented in this case.
7
Objective completion, evidentiary use: the reconstructed documents and in-flight observations were used to support Air Canada's corporate-espionage lawsuit against WestJet and Hill, with the collection itself later disclosed in a sworn court affidavit as part of that litigation.
Countering Stage 7: Once collected material has already been used to build a legal case, the target's remaining leverage is procedural: challenging the lawfulness of the collection itself (as Hill's trespass claim did) and, as Hill did here, planting decoy or canary documents in advance to later prove surveillance occurred and on what terms.
Quick Facts
Victim
Mark Hill, WestJet Airlines co-founder and Vice-President of Strategic Planning (targeted at his personal residence in Victoria, B.C.)
Location
Victoria (Oak Bay area), British Columbia, Canada: Mark Hill's residence, where the trash was taken; forensic work performed in Ottawa, Ontario and Houston, Texas; litigation venued at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto
Date
2003-2004 (garbage collections confirmed March 22 and April 5, 2004); Air Canada's lawsuit against WestJet was filed/announced in early April 2004: contemporaneous Globe and Mail reporting (April 8, 2004) and a later retrospective (December 6, 2006) place the filing/announcement on April 6, 2004, while a separate June 30, 2004 Globe and Mail report states the suit "was launched April 7"; the exact date is disputed across contemporaneous sources and is best stated as "early April 2004"; the garbage-collection admission surfaced in Jasper Smith's affidavit, disclosed in reporting on June 30, 2004; case settled May 29, 2006
Impact
Confirmed via the joint press release filed as a U.S. SEC exhibit (May 29, 2006): WestJet paid Air Canada's investigation and litigation costs of CAD 5.5 million, plus made a CAD 10 million donation to children's charities across Canada in the name of both airlines, for a combined CAD 15.5 million, not the CAD 15M+5M figure sometimes cited in secondary summaries. No fine or criminal penalty was imposed; this was a negotiated civil settlement with all legal proceedings terminated.
Status
Confirmed
Case Type
Real-World Incident
Sector
Legal Services, Professional & Business Services, Transportation & Logistics
Threat Actor
Corporate / Competitive Intelligence
Related

Related Cases

Rite Aid Pharmacy Dumpster Disposal of Patient and Employee Records

TV investigative reporters filmed Rite Aid pharmacy dumpsters nationwide overflowing with readable prescription labels, patient records and job applications, leading…

Incident 2006Read →

P&G's 'Bad Hair Day': Dumpster-Diving Corporate Espionage on Unilever's Hair-Care Business

P&G-hired competitive-intelligence contractors retrieved roughly 80 unshredded confidential Unilever hair-care documents from the trash before P&G self-disclosed the operation, fired…

Incident 2000Read →

Nations Title Agency / Nations Holding Company Dumpster Diving and Hack Exposure (FTC Settlement, 2006)

A Kansas City TV station found intact consumer home-loan applications with Social Security and account numbers tossed in a title…

Incident 2006Read →