Working partly from memory here, so apologies if the specific facts are a little off.
The prior order dates back to 2012 (
link). At that time MOOSE complained about lack of maintenance on the POW Bridge and argued that that resulted in a discontinuance of the line. The CTA ruled on the complaint and indicated that they had no jurisdiction on maintenance standards and so they dismissed the complaint. They did however find that the City had omitted to include the POW Bridge in its 3 year plan and so they ordered the City to resubmit their 3 year plan iaw Section 141 of the CTA.
The second order was from 2018 (
link) and was a result of a complaint by MOOSE against the City regarding the construction of the Bayview Station and the resulting obstruction of the original line, thus arguing once again that the City had effectively discontinued the line. In this case the CTA ruling was in MOOSE's favour. However, as most folks here are aware, that order was overturned by an Order in Council in 2019 (
link). That OIC indicated that it was not necessary to maintain the line in working order at all times in order to retain it. Therefore there was no need to proceed with a formal discontinuance, nor to return the line to operational condition. There is an Explanatory Note that elaborates on the OIC but unfortunately I can't find a link to it at the moment.
Since the OIC only overturned the 2018 CTA decision concerning the Bayview Station, MOOSE believes that they can still seek enforcement on the 2012 CTA decision regarding the POW Bridge. MOOSE views that decision as a victory because the City needed to include the Bridge portion of the rail line in its 3 year plan, and continues to do so. MOOSE is still of the opinion that identifying a line in your 3 year plan as "retain" leads to a requirement to maintain the line in an operational condition.. However, the fact remains that the CTA is not responsible for oversight of maintenance on the line, as per their original decision. Additionally, the OIC on the 2018 decision has made it quite clear and therefore set a precedence that there is no requirement to maintain a rail line in operational condition as long as they are able to provide reasonable alternates to allow for the free movement of goods (and 'goods' does not include passengers). The City should be well within their rights to convert the Bridge to a pedestrian/bike corridor while still indicating on their 3 year plan that they are "retaining" the line. As indicated previously, 'retaining' the line does not have any mandate to maintain it in any sort of operational capacity, only that the potential still exists for it to be returned to rail use at some point in the future.
Edit: A copy of the Explanatory Note to the OIC can be found within the zip file at the following
link.
www.letsgomoose.ca
ontarioconstructionnews.com
