Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• VIA Rail sought permission to appeal the Superior Court's denial of an interlocutory injunction.

• The injunction aimed to stop CN from imposing safety-related restrictions on VIA's new Venture trains.

• The Court emphasized the distinction between significant and irreparable harm when assessing injunction criteria.

• Discretionary authority of Transport Canada was central to the Court’s refusal to intervene at this stage.

• The appeal raised complex regulatory and technical issues better suited for administrative processes.

• The Court of Appeal found no legal error or urgent need justifying exceptional appellate intervention.

Facts, procedural background, and decision

VIA Rail Canada Inc. applied for leave to appeal a judgment from the Québec Superior Court that had denied its motion for an interlocutory injunction against the Canadian National Railway Company (CN). The dispute stems from CN's imposition of operational restrictions on VIA Rail’s new “Venture” passenger trains. On October 11, 2024, CN implemented specific limitations under Article 103.1(f) of the Canadian Railway Operating Rules, targeting crossings and certain train configurations, particularly those lacking equipment like the "shunt enhancer." VIA Rail initially challenged these measures before the Federal Court, which declined jurisdiction in February 2025. VIA then brought the matter to the Superior Court, seeking a preliminary injunction while pursuing a permanent injunction and compensatory and punitive damages. The Superior Court rejected the motion, prompting VIA to request permission from the Court of Appeal to challenge that decision.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Justice Myriam Lachance, dismissed VIA Rail's request. The analysis centered on Article 31(2) C.p.c., which governs appeals from interlocutory judgments. For leave to be granted, the judgment must decide part of the case or cause irreparable harm, and the proposed appeal must serve the interest of justice. The judge reiterated that while the alleged harm to VIA Rail may be significant, it did not rise to the level of irreparable harm necessary to meet the statutory threshold. Furthermore, the interlocutory ruling had no bearing on the final merits of the case, as VIA Rail could still pursue its claim for a permanent injunction.

The Court also rejected VIA’s argument that the Superior Court had failed to apply the proper legal criteria under Article 511 C.p.c. The judgment indicated that the Superior Court had carefully considered the three criteria required for granting injunctive relief, particularly the seriousness of the issue, which related directly to railway safety. The judge had exercised discretion to refrain from interfering at the interlocutory stage, noting that administrative processes were underway within Transport Canada. The court emphasized the complexity of the technical and evidentiary record, involving thousands of pages of expert reports, none of which were subject to oral testimony.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the matter was more appropriately handled through administrative channels specializing in railway safety. There was no demonstrable legal error or exceptional urgency to justify appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to appeal was denied, with costs awarded against VIA Rail.