VIA Rail

[dowlingm]

I’m not sure what jurisdiction a provincial court could possibly claim over two federally regulated railroads…

VIA’s standard vendor contract stipulates Montreal as the jurisdiction to hear disputes generally. I assume that the Train Service Agreement is somewhat or possibly entirely different - but clearly VIA and their counsel thought there was at least a small chance. I only say this in response to one of @Trackside_Treasure ’s blog posts where he asks if Ontario’s courts will be the next stop. I would imagine if they don’t get anywhere in Quebec, that will be it for the possibility of provincial court involvement.

 

[lenaitch]

I’m not sure what jurisdiction a provincial court could possibly claim over two federally regulated railroads…

The way I understand it, the dispute is in relation to an operating agreement between the two parties, so is contract law, which is a provincial jurisdiction. VIA tried the Federal Court route and had it tossed.

 

[Bordercollie]

The way I understand it, the dispute is in relation to an operating agreement between the two parties, so is contract law, which is a provincial jurisdiction. VIA tried the Federal Court route and had it tossed.

But then that ruling is only binding in Quebec?

 

[Urban Sky]

But then that ruling is only binding in Quebec?

Sure Maybe, but that would already allow VIA to operate their QMO trains without bothering about CN’s restrictions…

 

[Bordercollie]

Sure, but that would already allow VIA to operate their QMO trains without bothering about CN’s restrictions…

Until you hit Ontario...

 

[dowlingm]

But then that ruling is only binding in Quebec?

not necessarily, no. Lots of agreements specify a provincial or state jurisdiction for civil court or arbitration. VIA’s standard vendor contract wouldn’t be much good if it only controlled services provided within the province, for example.

 

[micheal_can]

But then that ruling is only binding in Quebec?

It is called precedence. If it is ruled on in one province, then it can be expected that it could be ruled the same in all provinces. Which then means that the2 organizations will sit down and sort things out before one of them brings it through all the courts, or before they push for it to become a regulation.

 

[bearcat]

Until you hit Ontario...

I believe all the track from Ottawa to the Quebec border is VIA owned.

 

[micheal_can]

I believe all the track from Ottawa to the Quebec border is VIA owned.

I think they mean the route to Toronto which is CN owned.

 

[dowlingm]

It is called precedence. If it is ruled on in one province, then it can be expected that it could be ruled the same in all provinces. Which then means that the2 organizations will sit down and sort things out before one of them brings it through all the courts, or before they push for it to become a regulation.

Provincial courts do not bind courts of other provinces. While cases in other jurisdictions are helpful and often referred to, they do not dictate the outcome (not least given the differences between Quebec civil law and the rest of Canada’s common law). Only the Supreme Court has the power to have its precedents bind all inferior courts, having judges appointed from both civil and common law provinces.

How the Courts are Organized - Canada's Court System

An overview of Canada's court system by the Department of Justice Canada

www.justice.gc.ca

The issue here is jurisdiction. Taking an action in Ontario on a matter whose contract requires disputes to be resolved in New Brunswick would be difficult to get past the start line, never mind a judgment.

 

[micheal_can]

Provincial courts do not bind courts of other provinces. While cases in other jurisdictions are helpful and often referred to, they do not dictate the outcome (not least given the differences between Quebec civil law and the rest of Canada’s common law). Only the Supreme Court has the power to have its precedents bind all inferior courts, having judges appointed from both civil and common law provinces.

How the Courts are Organized - Canada's Court System

An overview of Canada's court system by the Department of Justice Canada

www.justice.gc.ca

The issue here is jurisdiction. Taking an action in Ontario on a matter whose contract requires disputes to be resolved in New Brunswick would be difficult to get past the start line, never mind a judgment.

I do know it is not binding. The 2 sides still need to show proof. And there is also the situation on where it needs to be tried. But, in a very simple term, you prove your case once, even if it is in Quebec where there legal system is different, there is a good chance that it will be upheld across the country. I was being very general with my explanation, but yours is a more detailed answer.

 

[lenaitch]

We may be overthinking this. It appears that it is being argued as a contract dispute between the two parties and, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the dispute has been directed to the Quebec Superior Court. Depending on the ruling, it is binding on the parties (subject to appeal). Geography doesn't matter and no laws are being argued.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

We may be overthinking this. It appears that it is being argued as a contract dispute between the two parties and, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the dispute has been directed to the Quebec Superior Court. Depending on the ruling, it is binding on the parties (subject to appeal). Geography doesn't matter and no laws are being argued.

The interesting thing is that the contract wasn't entered in affidavits during the Federal court case in Ontario. There is the Train Service Agreement that is still unresolved and renewed between VIA and CN. CN seems to rely on the 'you said you'd tell us if you were operating the Ventures in the Corridor more widely' and disputing the agreed-to axle count, yet that argument will come up against VIA's evidence that CN's own daily logs show Ventures being operated west to Toronto for months before CN brought in the Crossing Supplement, without CN taking any action at that time. The fact that there was the introduction of scheduled Venture service to SW Ontario from Toronto is what seems to have caused panic at CN.

I'm also wondering if the case has made it to the Canadian Transportation Agency for dispute resolution. Under the Transport Canada Ministerial Order, CN had to submit crossing log data (entering that during the Ontario court case as confidential - reason?) and TC has had that since January of this year with no change in Venture operation. A check of the public CTA cases shows nothing of this nature between CN & VIA.

Wednesday can't come soon enough!

 

[lenaitch]

The interesting thing is that the contract wasn't entered in affidavits during the Federal court case in Ontario. There is the Train Service Agreement that is still unresolved and renewed between VIA and CN. CN seems to rely on the 'you said you'd tell us if you were operating the Ventures in the Corridor more widely' and disputing the agreed-to axle count, yet that argument will come up against VIA's evidence that CN's own daily logs show Ventures being operated west to Toronto for months before CN brought in the Crossing Supplement, without CN taking any action at that time. The fact that there was the introduction of scheduled Venture service to SW Ontario from Toronto is what seems to have caused panic at CN.

I'm also wondering if the case has made it to the Canadian Transportation Agency for dispute resolution. Under the Transport Canada Ministerial Order, CN had to submit crossing log data (entering that during the Ontario court case as confidential - reason?) and TC has had that since January of this year with no change in Venture operation. A check of the public CTA cases shows nothing of this nature between CN & VIA.

Wednesday can't come soon enough!

I don't know, but it may be that the initial actions were seeking interlocutory injunctions, rather than disputing the terms of whatever agreement.

I am baffled that this whole mess wasn't in the hands of the regulator in the first place.

 

[crs1026]

I am baffled that this whole mess wasn't in the hands of the regulator in the first place.

I am disappointed, but not baffled. Ottawa treats VIA like the ugly sisters treated Cinderella.

Bureaucrats running for cover, and helping make room in the bushes for the Minister..... that I get very well.

- Paul