VIA and CN Venture Out of Court!

Storm clouds had gathered over Quebec Superior Court proceedings brought by VIA against CN and its crossing supplement and speed tables, first put in place in October, 2024. In March, 2025 VIA's Co-ordinator of Access to Information & Privacy let me know that "the hearing on the merits will be set for a date in 2027 or 2028, subject to the Court’s availability." And I settled my brains for a long two- to three-year nap when it came to reporting on the Quebec Superior Court case.

Sunny ways ahead, my friends? First, a little background on events since the previous post in this six-post Quebec Superior Court series...

July 2, 2025 - During an opinion presentation, the Honourable David Collier ruled that given the substantial volume of evidence and the number of expert witnesses announced by the parties (five each), and considering that, due to railway safety concerns, the case should be prepared expeditiously, the Court accepted the initial protocol of the proceedings dated July 2, 2025, and referred the case to the co-ordinating judge for a ruling on the request for special handling. 

August 7, 2025 - As a result, the Honourable Frederic Perodeau appointed the Honourable Donald Bisson, to provide special management of this proceeding, decide all incidental applications and make all appropriate orders, until the case is set for trial and judgment.

THEN THIS HAPPENED...

Earlier this month, it became apparent that VIA's attorneys had provided the Superior Court, District of Montreal's Honourable Donald Bisson with a remarkable letter on July 2, 2026, saying that the proceedings were to be settled amicably!

Published on the "Société québécoise d'information juridique" (SOQUIJ) site on September 1:

 Judgment - (Suspension of Proceedings)

               CONSIDERING that the plaintiff's attorneys have notified the Court with the agreement of the defendant in a letter dated 2 July 2026 that the parties are currently engaged in discussions that may lead to a settlement of the present dispute;

               CONSIDERING that the parties jointly request in the said letter of 2 July 2026 the suspension of the proceedings, including all applicable time limits under the Protocol of 2 July 2025 and the Code of Procedure in the present case, to assert until either party indicates to the Court its intention to resume the proceedings ("Joint Application for Suspension of Proceedings");

               WHEREAS the Joint Application for Suspension of Proceedings is made without any admission or waiver of any kind;

               CONSIDERING the general powers of the Court pursuant to section 49 C.p.c. and its powers relating to the suspension of the proceedings, the special management and management measures pursuant to Articles 156 to 158 C.p.c. ;

               WHEREAS the Joint Application for Suspension of Proceedings is of a conservatory nature and that the present case is likely to be settled amicably;

               CONSIDERING that the requested suspension of proceedings is in accordance with the principle of proportionality and in the interest of sound administration of justice to grant the Joint Application for Suspension of Proceedings;

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

               ACCEPTS the Joint Request for Suspension of Proceedings;

               SUSPENDS this proceeding, including all applicable deadlines under the terms of the Protocol of Proceedings of July 2, 2025 and the Code of Civil Procedure;

               ORDERS that the suspension of the proceedings take effect from the date of this judgment until the first of the following events occur:s

             The expiry of the tenth (10th) day following the transmission to the Court by either party of notice indicating its intention to resume proceedings; or

             The issuance of a court order on the resumption of the proceedings in accordance with its procedures;

           EVERYTHING, without legal costs.

 

DONALD BISSON J.C.S.

Mr. Bogdan Catanu, Mr. Jean-Christophe Martel, Mr. Claudette van Zyl,

Me Laurent Crépeau, Me Omar El Baba, Me Daniel Martz and Me Jennifer Price

Woods s.e.n.c.r.l.

Lawyers for the plaintiff VIA Rail Canada Inc.

Me Vincent Rochette, Me Maya Angenot, Me Dominic Dupoy, Me Heather Clark

Me Jean-Simon Schoenholz and Me Florence Méthot

Norton Rose Fulbright Canada S.E.N.C.R.L.,s.r.l.

Lawyers of the Defendant's National Railway Company of Canada

Hearing date: July 15, 2026 (on file)

SUNNY WAYS... TO BE CONTINUED DOWN THE TRACK

So, the parties are in discussions to that may (my emphasis) lead to a settlement of their dispute. Or in layman's terms, out of court? Though I remain with a legal-beagle ear to the ground, I'm also eager to hear just what the two parties are talking about, and what the final resolution of this nearly two-year courtroom confrontation will end up being. To the facts, Batman!

Because as the eminent Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so aptly put it, 

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. 

Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." 

Running extra...

Wow. Kingston's mayor really has an issue with VIA Rail! After VIA realigned its schedule, the mayor posted this to social media: Starting October 25, Kingston will see trains reduced from 187 to 179 – eight less VIA trains coming into and out of our community each week. 

Due to our fortuitous geography, Kingston is over-served by VIA. AND, we have three intercity bus connections and a new Air Canada direct bus link to Pearson Airport. Your Worship, call Calgary. Heck, engage with Edmonton. Rap with Regina. Voice to Victoria. Chat with Charlottetown. Talk to Thunder Bay. Advocate for cities, but don't do so while mentioning that we still have an average of 26 departures per day.

I'm tiptoeing through the social media tulips once again, and though unable to comment, I liked seeing this vintage Kingston Whig-Standard photo posted by fellow Kingston historian Marc Shaw. It shows Lloyd Shales, who moved from his Arch Street house garage/shop near the Queen's University campus to his long-standing Division at Queen Street hobby shop in 1958. At this time, my Dad was studying at Queen's University summer school and remembers patronizing Shales' garage shop!

First past the post...

Lloyd Shales, and his successor Peter Macdonald, were both gentlemen and each of them was what my Dad would call "a darn decent guy". There was never any sales pitch (and no free piece of flex track for every 50 pieces bought, either!) but reliable, courteous service and good selection. Shales also stocked R/C airplanes (upstairs) in the air as well as air in the tanks of the local scuba diving community afloat (downstairs).