[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 great 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.