VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

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.

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.

 

[micheal_can]

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.

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.

 

[reaperexpress]

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.

Maybe CN acts naughty because in the steam era receiving lumps of coal from Santa was a desirable outcome.

 

[Jonny5]

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.

This almost certainly is a case where the contract had vague or ambiguous language and likely never contemplated this situation.

Many people think large corporations with in-house legal counsel always draft iron-clad contracts that are perfectly written to cover every possible scenario. The reality is far from that, indeed it's very far from it. Many times these contracts have massive errors or omissions in them, or they have sloppy writing, or they omit many important or potential details about future changes or unexpected events that cannot be forseen many years earlier.

I suspect the real outcome here is not a court ruling, but VIA and CN making a settlement out of court to amend the contract (this is what happens in 90% of contract lawsuits) and they both agree to alter the contract to allow VIA to operate at least partially the way they want to operate, while CN is tasked with fixing their crossings but on an extended timetable.

In other words, nobody "loses". Each side gets something they want immediately, and then they move on and do what they need to do over the next few years.

 

[lenaitch]

This almost certainly is a case where the contract had vague or ambiguous language and likely never contemplated this situation.

Many people think large corporations with in-house legal counsel always draft iron-clad contracts that are perfectly written to cover every possible scenario. The reality is far from that, indeed it's very far from it. Many times these contracts have massive errors or omissions in them, or they have sloppy writing, or they omit many important or potential details about future changes or unexpected events that cannot be forseen many years earlier.

I suspect the real outcome here is not a court ruling, but VIA and CN making a settlement out of court to amend the contract (this is what happens in 90% of contract lawsuits) and they both agree to alter the contract to allow VIA to operate at least partially the way they want to operate, while CN is tasked with fixing their crossings but on an extended timetable.

In other words, nobody "loses". Each side gets something they want immediately, and then they move on and do what they need to do over the next few years.

You could be right, but I doubt this is even a contract dispute. It strikes me as a dispute between two parties operating in a regulated environment, which makes me wonder why it is court and not before the regulator.

You are correct about the course of contract law. Unless they choose to specialize in areas such as criminal law, HTA (mostly paralegals now), etc. the vast majority of lawyers will never see the inside of a courtroom for a trial.

 

[micheal_can]

This almost certainly is a case where the contract had vague or ambiguous language and likely never contemplated this situation.

Many people think large corporations with in-house legal counsel always draft iron-clad contracts that are perfectly written to cover every possible scenario. The reality is far from that, indeed it's very far from it. Many times these contracts have massive errors or omissions in them, or they have sloppy writing, or they omit many important or potential details about future changes or unexpected events that cannot be forseen many years earlier.

I suspect the real outcome here is not a court ruling, but VIA and CN making a settlement out of court to amend the contract (this is what happens in 90% of contract lawsuits) and they both agree to alter the contract to allow VIA to operate at least partially the way they want to operate, while CN is tasked with fixing their crossings but on an extended timetable.

In other words, nobody "loses". Each side gets something they want immediately, and then they move on and do what they need to do over the next few years.

Another part of my dream world where contracts are thoughtful and ironclad. Maybe this case will help Via learn to make their contracts more ironclad.

 

[crs1026]

You could be right, but I doubt this is even a contract dispute. It strikes me as a dispute between two parties operating in a regulated environment, which makes me wonder why it is court and not before the regulator.

You are correct about the course of contract law. Unless they choose to specialize in areas such as criminal law, HTA (mostly paralegals now), etc. the vast majority of lawyers will never see the inside of a courtroom for a trial.

When VIA has gone before the CTA in the past, the CTA’s first test has been to determine if there is a commercial agreement between the parties, and if so the remedy to a dispute is to seek standard commercial arbitration. See here for a lengthy discussion of this process.

To seek a remedy from the CTA, I would guess that VIA would have to prove that the matter is outside any existing agreement. Perhaps that explains why this has gone to the courts and not to the CTA.

One has to suspect that VIA and CN already have language in their agreements saying that CN must make best efforts to handle VIA trains... and also language stating that VIA trains must adhere to CN's safety and operating requirements. And as noted, the explicit language of the contract will likely not speak to Venture equipment or shunt resistances....That creates a lawyer's open season where the parties can argue the intent of the contract in fairly general terms and the arbitrator must hear evidence and decide how the intent of whatever wording was negotiated applies to this situation.

And since we don't know the language of the existing agreement, we spectators are generally unable to figure out what the answer might be.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

When VIA has gone before the CTA in the past, the CTA’s first test has been to determine if there is a commercial agreement between the parties, and if so the remedy to a dispute is to seek standard commercial arbitration. See here for a lengthy discussion of this process.

To seek a remedy from the CTA, I would guess that VIA would have to prove that the matter is outside any existing agreement. Perhaps that explains why this has gone to the courts and not to the CTA.

One has to suspect that VIA and CN already have language in their agreements saying that CN must make best efforts to handle VIA trains... and also language stating that VIA trains must adhere to CN's safety and operating requirements. And as noted, the explicit language of the contract will likely not speak to Venture equipment or shunt resistances....That creates a lawyer's open season where the parties can argue the intent of the contract in fairly general terms and the arbitrator must hear evidence and decide how the intent of whatever wording was negotiated applies to this situation.

And since we don't know the language of the existing agreement, we spectators are generally unable to figure out what the answer might be.

- Paul

If there was a problem with the low shunt signal the argument should be made that this should have been discovered during the testing phase before the trains were allowed to enter regular service.

The fact that CN gave the trains their LRC+? Designation means that it was approved, to later retract that at a later date due to "potential" safety concerns is a non starter. There isn't a single recorded incident of a crossing not activating. So their argument is worthless.