News   Apr 02, 2026
Early Work Commencing on St Clair-Old Weston Station
 1.1K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Cranes Up, Foundations Underway at Peter Gilgan Mississauga Hospital
 718     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 1.9K     2 

VIA Rail

lenaitch said:
It appears from what's available to us that CN's case lacks foundation. I wonder what their game is.
Click to expand...

Ironically, it reeks of "Hey look, if you had your own rail line, you wouldn't have these problems". Which ultimately assists VIA in selling the HxR thing.

Or, more generously, "Hey, look, if this is a problem, by all means offer to pay for replacing our old plant"

If this were a one-of, I would attribute it to somebody at CN overreacting and erring on the side of extreme caution. But when one combines it with other measures - such as the new hot weather restrictions on jointed rail - one does wonder if the conspiracy theory has merit.

I doubt that anyone at CN thought that VIA would just give up and go away, but it sure sounds like a drip-drip-drip approach to making passenger trains inconvenient to operate. Knowing that no one in government is going to take the position that greater risk is acceptable. Sure reeks of a micro-aggressive, malicious-compliance attitude towards passenger trains. Much like the extra shove that hockey players give their opponents after the whistle has stopped play - not enough grounds for a penalty, but very much for effect.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Urban Sky said:
Their game (if you insist on them acting maliciously) could be to retaliate against something (though not sure what). I don’t think there are any negative consequences for them if the courts were to eventually decide in VIA‘s favour, but they would have caused havoc on them for multiple months.
Click to expand...
No mal intent implied; simply a turn-of-phrase. Alternatively, 'end goal', 'intent', raison d'etre'. Other than to create havoc, why start a fight you know you likely can't win? Understanding that it is likely VIA would legally retaliate, why spend money to defend it (assuming in-house counsel almost never handles litigation). Maybe they just assumed VIA would roll over and say 'oh well, this is our new reality'.

roger1818 said:
Depending how damming the verdict is, VIA could potentially sue CN for damages, for expenses, lost revenue and damaged reputation. There could potentially also be a class action lawsuit against CN from the passengers for a needless loss of time.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, although the Crown and its agencies seldom do that. Class action by riders? Possibly; no doubt some ambulance chaser is trolling the Internet as we speak.

crs1026 said:
Or, more generously, "Hey, look, if this is a problem, by all means offer to pay for replacing our old plant"
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but if the evidence is that the equipment meets regulatory minimum shunt standards, it doesn't seem like much of a case (again, based on information available to us).
 
Urban Sky said:
Their game (if you insist on them acting maliciously) could be to retaliate against something (though not sure what). I don’t think there are any negative consequences for them if the courts were to eventually decide in VIA‘s favour, but they would have caused havoc on them for multiple months.
Click to expand...
We are ignoring the other main issue between Via and CN -that CN does not schedule trains such that Via stays on time. So, what this could be is finding a way to get rid of Via/forcing Via to use its own right of way. What may end up happening is a court order that forces CN to treat Via trains as trains that are over siding. In other words, all trains must yield to Via. This also may force CN to upgrade their signalling, and it may be at CN's expense.

If CN loses this court case, this could be a big win for passenger rail in Canada.
 
micheal_can said:
If CN loses this court case, this could be a big win for passenger rail in Canada.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't get your hopes up. It's a fairly narrow focus and, if VIA wins, matters simply go back to status qup.

Not really knowing the legislative framework, I'm wonder where either the DOT or CTA is in all of this.
 
Urban Sky said:
I believe that there are „no suing“ clauses which even prevented VIA from suing CN after such egregious negligence like when they killed scores of people in the Hinton derailment. However, they would work both ways, so CN couldn’t sue VIA after the Burlington derailment…
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any no suing clauses that would stand up to egregious negligence. Such clauses are often more aspirational when it comes to big issues. Feckless bureaucrats failing to start lawsuits is another issue; back then many were ex-CN.
 
I am very puzzled how this ended up before a court, as opposed to the CTA or the safety regulator. No court is going to assume they have the detailed knowledge and to determine safety standards in a very technical matter in a specific industry.
And if it were kicked to the CTA, they would likely rule with reference to VIA's contract with CN. Unless VIA can prove that CN is not living up to this contract, the CTA will likely defer to the contract and the safety regulator.... who so far has not been stepping up.

- Paul
 
lenaitch said:
I wouldn't get your hopes up. It's a fairly narrow focus and, if VIA wins, matters simply go back to status qup.

Not really knowing the legislative framework, I'm wonder where either the DOT or CTA is in all of this.
Click to expand...
I can dream that we have a system that rights wrongs. I hate to agree that you are likely right in that this will have no bearing on anything else. However, if that is won, a win is a win.
 
micheal_can said:
I am not sure if it is Union Station in Toronto or another major NA station, but there are pictures of the switches on fire.
Click to expand...
Actual heated switches were installed at Toronto Union Station. To my understanding Chicago has a similar winter to us, I wonder why they haven’t installed heated switches on their network yet.
 
micheal_can said:
I can dream that we have a system that rights wrongs. I hate to agree that you are likely right in that this will have no bearing on anything else. However, if that is won, a win is a win.
Click to expand...
I wonder if you understand how conflict resolution works. VIA is arguing that the CN directive was inappropriate. Win or lose, that is the singular issue before the court and all the parties will be able to speak to. Do you expect the court to rule on matters not before it? The court isn't Santa Claus.
 
lenaitch said:
I wonder if you understand how conflict resolution works. VIA is arguing that the CN directive was inappropriate. Win or lose, that is the singular issue before the court and all the parties will be able to speak to. Do you expect the court to rule on matters not before it? The court isn't Santa Claus.
Click to expand...
No, but when the next case for being delayed by CN is brought to the courts, in my perfect world, precedent has been set an it would not work well in CN's favour. However,I know that is likely not the way it will work out.
 
micheal_can said:
No, but when the next case for being delayed by CN is brought to the courts, in my perfect world, precedent has been set an it would not work well in CN's favour. However,I know that is likely not the way it will work out.
Click to expand...
Then you don't understand how precedent law works.

Having said that, this appears to be a spat between two corporations; one private, one public. I'm not aware that corporate decisions are subject to judicial review, but seeing as it is a regulated industry I could be wrong. This is basically a civil dispute in the public sphere. The court could punt this back to the CTA or DOT. Even if the court does rule, civil or administrative rulings do not create precedent law. A party could use a decision in a future litigation as a supporting argument but it would only be useful if the circumstances we strikingly similar.
 
lenaitch said:
Then you don't understand how precedent law works.

Having said that, this appears to be a spat between two corporations; one private, one public. I'm not aware that corporate decisions are subject to judicial review, but seeing as it is a regulated industry I could be wrong. This is basically a civil dispute in the public sphere. The court could punt this back to the CTA or DOT. Even if the court does rule, civil or administrative rulings do not create precedent law. A party could use a decision in a future litigation as a supporting argument but it would only be useful if the circumstances we strikingly similar.
Click to expand...
I am not trained in law. I have not had any run ins with law. Sadly my knowledge is through what is reported(and what is not). I have many assumptions biased on a fair and just justice system. Sadly, many of those are incorrect.

As far as the precedence I think of, one could argue that both this and the other things that CN are doing is to purposely delay Via and prevent them from being able to run according to their schedule.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top