Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Canadian Transportation Agency — Procedural fairness — Notice — Bias — Evidentiary requirements — Power to conduct investigation of its own motion to determine whether railway company is fulfilling its service obligations — Relationship between procedure and substance in administrative law — Principles of procedural fairness in regulatory investigation into systemic issues — Right to notice of allegations — Permissibility of overlapping decision-making functions — Evidentiary requirements for issuance of systemic remedies by regulator — Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10, s. 116(1.11).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In December 2018, the Canadian Transportation Agency began receiving complaints from shipper associations about serious freight rail service problems in the Vancouver area. Having gathered additional information from shipper associations, railway companies and the relevant government departments, the Agency initiated an investigation on its own motion under s. 116(1.11) of the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10. In January 2019, it received authorization to proceed with the investigation. It proceeded with the investigation, releasing its First and Second Inquiry Reports before proceeding to the adjudicative phase of the process.

The Agency released its Preliminary Decision, accepted further information, and then issued its Final Decision. It ordered CN to (1) develop a detailed plan to respond to surges in traffic that occur annually in the Vancouver area with a view to avoiding or minimizing the use of embargoes and maintaining the highest level of service possible; (2) limit its resort to embargoes to exceptional situations resulting from factors beyond its control, where all other reasonable alternatives had been attempted and found to be insufficient; (3) only implement embargoes that target specific, actual challenges, and only when they are designed to minimize impacts on traffic carriage and delivery while in place; (4) only implement temporary embargoes; and (5) lift embargoes as early as possible. The Court of Appeal dismissed CN’s appeal.