On 27 February 2022, a heavy-lift Antonov An-124-100 “Ruslan”, operated by Volga-Dnepr, landed at Toronto Pearson International Airport - to become grounded for many months. The aircraft had arrived in Canada on a commercial cargo flight carrying medical supplies, including COVID-19 test kits, delivered at the request of Canadian authorities amid ongoing pandemic-related logistics constraints. Shortly after its arrival, however, Ottawa imposed a ban on Russian aircraft entering or departing Canadian airspace, leaving the An-124 unable to depart.
This was neither a technical delay nor a contractual dispute. It was a political and legal decision: the aircraft was effectively frozen on the ground under Canada’s sanctions regime. In June 2023, the Canadian government went further, publicly announcing its intention to initiate confiscation proceedings, with the stated aim of redirecting the aircraft’s value toward support for Ukraine.
At that point, the case moved beyond temporary detention into a fundamentally different phase — the possible permanent deprivation of a privately owned aviation asset.

Why the An-124 matters

The An-124 is one of the largest serially produced cargo aircraft ever built. Its maximum payload reaches 120–150 tonnes, with a range of roughly 3000 miles at maximum load. The type occupies a unique niche, carrying oversized cargo for the energy sector, aerospace programmes, defence logistics and humanitarian missions.
Before 2022, An-124s were deeply embedded in Western logistics chains. Aircraft operated by Volga-Dnepr and Ukraine’s Antonov Airlines routinely flew under contracts for NATO, EU governments and major industrial clients. Their legal status was widely viewed as commercial and transnational rather than political.
This integration is precisely what makes the Toronto case so sensitive: the aircraft is neither a state plane nor a military asset, but private property operating in the global market.

Canada’s position: sanctions as leverage

Canadian officials have consistently argued that their actions fall squarely within the country’s sanctions framework. In public statements, Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly has described the confiscation of Russian-linked assets as a “clear message” and part of a broader pressure strategy.
Ottawa’s logic rests on three pillars:

1. The aircraft belongs to a company linked to a sanctioned jurisdiction.
2. Canadian law allows the freezing and seizure of assets under sanctions legislation.
3. Redirecting confiscated assets for compensatory purposes is politically justified.

From this perspective, the An-124 is not an exceptional case, but simply the most visible illustration of a wider policy.

The owner’s argument: investment protection and compensation

Volga-Dnepr takes a sharply different view. The company argues that the aircraft is owned by a private legal entity not directly subject to sanctions and that its detention violates the 1989 bilateral investment treaty between Canada and the USSR, to which Russia is a successor.
Potential claims have been estimated at least $100 million, broadly in line with the market value of an An-124 given its age, condition and scarcity.
The company’s core argument hinges on the distinction between freezing and confiscation. A freeze may be framed as a temporary restriction; confiscation, by contrast, requires:

• a judicial process,
• a clear legal basis for expropriation,
• and a mechanism for compensation.

Absent these elements, the company argues, the measure amounts to unlawful expropriation.

Why the case is legally ambiguous

From a legal standpoint, the Toronto An-124 sits in a grey zone.
First, sanctions regimes traditionally restrict the use of assets rather than mandate their outright seizure. The shift from freezing to confiscation represents a relatively new and still weakly tested practice.
Second, aircraft are inherently mobile assets, designed for continuous cross-border movement. If this precedent is upheld, it could fundamentally alter risk assessments for airlines, lessors and insurers worldwide.
Third, jurisdiction is central. The aircraft came under Canadian control largely by circumstance — it happened to be on Canadian soil when political conditions changed abruptly. This strengthens the argument that regulatory risk has become less predictable.

Potential precedents

Whatever the outcome, the case is likely to generate lasting effects:

1. Investment arbitration. Private companies may increasingly rely on bilateral investment treaties to challenge asset seizures.
2. Route planning changes. Airlines could avoid jurisdictions where sanctions-related confiscation risks are perceived as high.
3. Higher insurance costs. Political risk premiums for aviation assets are likely to rise.
4. Erosion of aviation neutrality. Aircraft may cease to be viewed as politically neutral commercial tools.

For the heavy-lift cargo sector — where individual aircraft can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars — these implications are particularly acute.

Impact on the aviation market

Even without a final ruling, the effect is already visible. The market for outsize cargo transport has tightened since 2022, alternatives to the An-124 are limited, and legal risk has become a material consideration.
For governments, this creates a dilemma: sanctions may strengthen political leverage, but they also undermine confidence in the legal protection of private assets. For businesses, the case challenges the long-standing assumption that aviation assets operate above geopolitics.

The An-124 stranded in Toronto is more than a dispute over a single aircraft. It is a collision between two logics: the expanding reach of sanctions policy and the investment-law framework that has underpinned international aviation for decades.
Whatever the resolution, it will serve as a reference point. Either states will solidify a broad interpretation of sanctions powers, or a clearer boundary will be drawn between freezing and confiscation. In both scenarios, the aviation industry is unlikely to return to its former assumption of political neutrality.