I trust this will be of interest and answer some questions:
VIA applied to Federal Court seeking a judicial review, claiming CN had not performed a risk assessment nor provided evidence to substantiat...
tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com
Really detailed summary. Thanks for that! It's a lot to unpack. I can't estimate the number of times I heard 'this is the first time I've heard of this' or 'nobody told me' when dealing with the government and I suspect large corporations are no different. People agreeing to or signing off on something that is out of their lane isn't surprising. It is also a great way to spread out accountability to the point that, in the end, nobody is accountable.
I noticed this entry that references US experience:
"October 29, 2024 - Top CN and VIA staff meet again in a 30-minute Virtual Teams meeting to discuss the LOS issue during which CN indicates, among other things, that its understanding of LOS stemmed from its experience in the U.S. and that the problem is the wheel to rail interaction that occurs with lightweight rolling stock with a narrow and trued wheel profile and low axle count (under 32)."
I know little of the regulated rail industry but, drawing a parallel from automobile safety, if it is determined that there is a safety-related design deficiency when viewed against regulated standards (and that might be the problem), one would think the manufacturer would be compelled to come up with a fix.
The filing is a lot of documents. Normally, the court will take 'judicial notice' of statute or regulatory law, but regulatory law deals in a lot of 'ya buts', exceptions, exemptions and qualifiers, and the Federal Court deals with a wide range of this type of legislation, so it might be deemed easier to simply provide it with the relevant legislation (or it is a rule of the Court). Simply from a tactical point of view, it never hurts to present a nice, tight package so the judges or their clerks don't have to look things up. It make your side look accommodating and helpful. Providing copies of any cases you are citing isn't unusual. The hearing is for a judicial review and present facts, related law and similar cases form part of your 'factum' or written foundation of your case.