|
|
|
- Thread starter SaugeenJunction
- Start date
steveintoronto
Superstar
If anyone thinks this is going to be "tied up in two months"...they're sorely mistaken if Watson is to be taken at his word:
Watson misses the legal aspect of what the Transportation and other Acts state:
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...binet-to-reverse-prince-of-wales-bridge-order
Watson misses the legal aspect of what the Transportation and other Acts state:
That's not how the legislation views the requirements it states.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...binet-to-reverse-prince-of-wales-bridge-order
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Maybe Watson's aware of the legal process and still doesn't believe even through that process Moose could have a viable bid. One would think Ottawa City legal would have briefed the Mayor on all scenarios, and all potential players/groups. Please correct me if I'm wrong but the "legal aspect" you're referring to and the connection to Watson's quote about "viable rail operators" is a reference to the discountinance process? In other words, the City applies to discontinue the line/bridge, and companies, like Moose, could bid to take it over?
I realize it's been discussed before here. The Mayor seems to be suggesting that few if any companies other than Moose would be interested, and even if Moose did apply/bid they aren't viable.
I realize it's been discussed before here. The Mayor seems to be suggesting that few if any companies other than Moose would be interested, and even if Moose did apply/bid they aren't viable.
steveintoronto
Superstar
^ No. I'm pointing out the basis of the CTA's ruling(s). Moose has absolutely nothing to do with the last order save that it can be seen as a consequence of Moose's petitioning the CTA for prior rulings.
To keep bringing MOOSE into the latest CTA decision is nothing short of obfuscation.
To keep bringing MOOSE into the latest CTA decision is nothing short of obfuscation.
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Not trying to obfuscate. Just relating my comment to a direct quote from the article cited: "Watson also said he didn’t believe there were viable rail operators that could use the railway."
steveintoronto
Superstar
Before this becomes a situation of 'he says, he says' (apologies to 'she'), here's the ruling:
[...]
http://kitchissippiward.ca/sites/default/files/R-2018-23-eng.pdf
This is purely the CTA ruling on the City's non-compliance with prior rulings. Watson could blame it on Martians, and it would be just as specious as MOOSE.
[...]
http://kitchissippiward.ca/sites/default/files/R-2018-23-eng.pdf
This is purely the CTA ruling on the City's non-compliance with prior rulings. Watson could blame it on Martians, and it would be just as specious as MOOSE.
Attachments
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ And I assume Moose is very much interested in stepping into the process if [27] 2. happens to execute their plan, given past sentiments expressed here in in the comments in this thread.
It's my opinion that [27] 2. is what Watson is generally or conceptually referring to when he indicates he "doesn't believe there were viable rail operators that could use the railway." My view is that it's a reference the discountinance process. If folks have a different opinion or view I am totally fine with that. Urban Toronto is place for open discussion, views, and personal opinions on various topics.
It's my opinion that [27] 2. is what Watson is generally or conceptually referring to when he indicates he "doesn't believe there were viable rail operators that could use the railway." My view is that it's a reference the discountinance process. If folks have a different opinion or view I am totally fine with that. Urban Toronto is place for open discussion, views, and personal opinions on various topics.
Last edited:
Charles
New Member
My thoughts on the CTA decision and the City's plan to appeal. (Apologies for the long-winded post.)
First of all, I think we need to make sure we differentiate between the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) ('The Act") and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ("The Agency"). The Act is the Law, the Agency interprets the law and makes rulings based on that interpretation and enforces them.
The Law is the law. The interpretation of the Law is subject to challenge and appeal.
Under the Act, there are three primary clauses that are relevant:
1. Railway owners must indicate their intent to continue using their rail lines in their three year plan.
2. If railway owners do not intend to continue using their lines they must go through the discontinuance process.
3. Other railway operators may be granted running rights on a rail line, either with the agreement of the owner, or as mandated by the Agency.
The current decision by the Agency has three key interpretations:
1. Railway owners are not required to maintain rail lines in a usable/operational condition at all times.
2. Railway owners may not allow railway lines to deteriorate or be altered to the point that they can not be restored.
3. A reasonable time frame to restore a rail line to operable condition is 12 months.
My thoughts on the Agency interpretations:
1. I think this is a no-brainer and all parties would agree to this. Anything other than this would prevent owners from conducting maintenance, modifications, improvements, or alterations.
2. Once again, I don't think most parties would have a disagreement with this. No one is suggesting letting bridges crumble to the ground or building roads over railway corridors is acceptable without going through discontinuance.
3. Here is where I think there is room for debate and appeal. Where did the 12 months come from? Why is that considered a reasonable time frame to restore a railway line? Is 12 months applicable across the board or is that only for this particular rail line? In regards to the POW Bridge scenario, the City has indicated that it could restore the line within 3 years. Why is 3 year unreasonable whereas 1 year is considered reasonable? Why not make it shorter, for example 3 months? etc. etc.
I don't have an answer nor do I preclude to know the solution. All I'm suggesting is that the Agency has set a precedence here and the precedence in my mind is the 12 month timeline from an order under Div IV of the Act. I believe that that precedence can be challenged from both sides, from the owners perspective suggesting it is too short a time frame to be reasonable, but also from third parties who would like to gain running rights who may argue that that time frame is too long and it should be shorter.
On a related side note. Since the 12 months timeline is new and precedent setting, one cannot say that the City was previously in contravention. It is only if they fail to abide by the Agency's order that they could subsequently be found to not be in compliance.
First of all, I think we need to make sure we differentiate between the Canada Transportation Act (CTA) ('The Act") and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) ("The Agency"). The Act is the Law, the Agency interprets the law and makes rulings based on that interpretation and enforces them.
The Law is the law. The interpretation of the Law is subject to challenge and appeal.
Under the Act, there are three primary clauses that are relevant:
1. Railway owners must indicate their intent to continue using their rail lines in their three year plan.
2. If railway owners do not intend to continue using their lines they must go through the discontinuance process.
3. Other railway operators may be granted running rights on a rail line, either with the agreement of the owner, or as mandated by the Agency.
The current decision by the Agency has three key interpretations:
1. Railway owners are not required to maintain rail lines in a usable/operational condition at all times.
2. Railway owners may not allow railway lines to deteriorate or be altered to the point that they can not be restored.
3. A reasonable time frame to restore a rail line to operable condition is 12 months.
My thoughts on the Agency interpretations:
1. I think this is a no-brainer and all parties would agree to this. Anything other than this would prevent owners from conducting maintenance, modifications, improvements, or alterations.
2. Once again, I don't think most parties would have a disagreement with this. No one is suggesting letting bridges crumble to the ground or building roads over railway corridors is acceptable without going through discontinuance.
3. Here is where I think there is room for debate and appeal. Where did the 12 months come from? Why is that considered a reasonable time frame to restore a railway line? Is 12 months applicable across the board or is that only for this particular rail line? In regards to the POW Bridge scenario, the City has indicated that it could restore the line within 3 years. Why is 3 year unreasonable whereas 1 year is considered reasonable? Why not make it shorter, for example 3 months? etc. etc.
I don't have an answer nor do I preclude to know the solution. All I'm suggesting is that the Agency has set a precedence here and the precedence in my mind is the 12 month timeline from an order under Div IV of the Act. I believe that that precedence can be challenged from both sides, from the owners perspective suggesting it is too short a time frame to be reasonable, but also from third parties who would like to gain running rights who may argue that that time frame is too long and it should be shorter.
On a related side note. Since the 12 months timeline is new and precedent setting, one cannot say that the City was previously in contravention. It is only if they fail to abide by the Agency's order that they could subsequently be found to not be in compliance.
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Excellent analysis Charles. Thanks for sharing. Very clear, helpful and to the point.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Indeed. There are sections under which a ruling could have occurred giving them only six months.
In the event:
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/node/97505#Section140-146
The following sets a stage that Watson would be wise to consider. Petitioning as he is will only make the response more harsh. He'd best retain some legal counsel outside of the City's staff attorney.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/node/97505#Section140-146
Watson isn't approaching this rationally. He claims to question the CTA's authority to govern federally regulated railways. Guess how far that's going to go in court or in dealings with the Ministry?
He'd best get out front of this situation and start bartering.
wopchop
Building Toronto
The answer is pretty clear. Ottawa has no intention of discontinuing the line, as the bridge is vital to its long term transit plans.
That only leaves 27(1) and the City is saying that 12 months is unreasonable - not for construction reasons - but because of money. They are saying that their current funding envelope doesn't cover that expense and to do so now would be a burden on taxpayers at no benefit for years. That's money that could be spent on other items with immediate impact.
So again, what is the purpose of the 12 month timeline? Who determined that it was reasonable? Is there someone ready and waiting to use the bridge? No. Is the CTA afraid that the city plans on demolishing the bridge? No, because it is part of their long term transit plans. Is the CTA willing to fund restoration of the line and bridge now? No? Well, take a hike.
That only leaves 27(1) and the City is saying that 12 months is unreasonable - not for construction reasons - but because of money. They are saying that their current funding envelope doesn't cover that expense and to do so now would be a burden on taxpayers at no benefit for years. That's money that could be spent on other items with immediate impact.
So again, what is the purpose of the 12 month timeline? Who determined that it was reasonable? Is there someone ready and waiting to use the bridge? No. Is the CTA afraid that the city plans on demolishing the bridge? No, because it is part of their long term transit plans. Is the CTA willing to fund restoration of the line and bridge now? No? Well, take a hike.
kEiThZ
Superstar
It's really more a political issue than a legal one at this point. The law is clear. Ottawa broke it. What is also clear is that the enforcer is a quasi-judicial tribunal. And that means the Transport Minister can exercise his discretionary powers to wholly exempt or partially exempt Ottawa from part of the ruling. It's not a court order to be overturned.
No organization should bank on such an exercise going entirely in their favour. However, it's hard to see how the interests of the federal, provincial and municipal governments are not aligned here. Is there any party that benefits is forcing the City's full compliance with the CTA ruling? Ministerial discretion through the exercise of G-in-C powers exist for exactly these types of situations.
I, do expect, the City will get a favourable ruling from Garneau. But I also expect, that ruling to come with some strict conditions that will also have to be met.
No organization should bank on such an exercise going entirely in their favour. However, it's hard to see how the interests of the federal, provincial and municipal governments are not aligned here. Is there any party that benefits is forcing the City's full compliance with the CTA ruling? Ministerial discretion through the exercise of G-in-C powers exist for exactly these types of situations.
I, do expect, the City will get a favourable ruling from Garneau. But I also expect, that ruling to come with some strict conditions that will also have to be met.
micheal_can
Senior Member
If the minister decides to exempt Ottawa this could be a slippery slope. Just imagine a city being able to buy a rail line and then just leave it. A company wants to run revenue service on it, and now the municipalities can thwart them. Things like what Ottawa are doing are exactly what the regulations are there to prevent.
steveintoronto
Superstar
A note of clarification on prior interventions by the Governor in Council. I'm still researching how often this has happened and the legal basis stated for doing so in each case: (be aware that the pertaining Act has been superceded with a later one since these orders)
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
I don't think it's a slippery slope because it's not as simple as any kind of company just walking in and claiming they can run passenger or freight service. It's more complex than that. There are strict regulations and conditions to operating a railway. They need to have a Certificate of Fitness.
I got back to the article noted above that said Watson "doesn't believe there were viable rail operators that could use the railway."