BCRP Fails to Give Evidence of Government Mandate

Anonymous has supplied us with a very interesting piece of information in a case involving BC Rail Properties in Prince George Court.


After reading this judgment I found a couple of interesting submissions and reasons for judgment. Not the least of which involves the following:

[39] The only harm that I can infer would accrue to the defendant from a preservation of the plaintiff’s option to purchase pending a hearing of the issue on the merits is that the defendant would be delayed or hindered in marketing the premises in the intervening period of time. The defendant states in submissions that an injunction would prevent the defendant from dealing with the premises in accordance with its mandate from the provincial government to divest itself of all its real property. There is no evidence as to the terms of any such mandate or what losses may occur if there are delays experienced. The defendant also suggests that an injunction would be in place for some time as this action is unsuitable for Rule 18A summary disposition given the conflicts in evidence the require findings of credibility to resolve.

So BCRP tells the court that a interim interloculatory injunction prevents them from doing the governments bidding ie : divesting itself of all real properties. They say this has been mandated. Yet they fail to show evidence in court?

It will be interesting to see the final results of this iterim injunction.

Many Many thanks for anonymous for forwarding us this information. Gary E


BC Mary said...

Hooray for the Anon-O-Mouse who sent you those "Reasons for Judgment" on a case involving BCRail Properties ... and

Hooray for Gary E, for noting the apparent error of omission, i.e., they failed to show evidence in court.

Gary E, may I have your permission to copy this at my place? And I'd like to talk a bit about the fact that this is an INTERIM INJUNCTION ... and compare it to our pre-July14/09 efforts to gain such a thing, or something similar, to delay further transactions in the BCRail-CN transaction.

You're doing great work, Gary E., and I'm glad of it. [big smile here]



RossK said...

Great bit of fact-based, reality-laden Citizen Journalism that matters Gary.



Gary E said...

Your welcome and thank you Ross.
When I got the piece I couldn't believe my stroke of luck. This one bit of info from an Anon has helped me believe that there are more than just a few people that are concerned with the BC Rail Giveaway. I am truly grateful for this piece as I know we all are.
Just a note here for everyone reading here. I am still digging for a piece that I came across last year pertaining to Rail Regulations. The timing of the submission may go a long way to answering a certain MLAs' smoke and mirror act.
My time during the days is sporadic for now as I'm trying to build a new home here. But rest assured when I find it it will be posted.
Thanks to Mary above and thanks again Ross.

Anonymous said...

Maybe this is what you were looking for?

Submission to Railway Safety Act (RSA) Review Panel
David Moorhouse, Legislative Representative,
United Transportation Union, Local 1778 (former BC Rail, South),
June 2007

I have been a railway employee for 31 years, employed first by BC Rail, then by CN Rail
after BC Rail was sold. I have spent much of my career as a conductor, working
throughout the province, and I spent 6 years as safety advisor to the entire union
A reliance on the Safety Management System downloads much of Transport Canada’s
responsibility to regulate railway safety to the railways themselves. In theory, a fully
functioning SMS should provide integrated safety management and self-check
mechanisms. In practice, much of the SMS exists only on paper, which may satisfy a
desktop audit, but does little to enhance safety culture as its authors imagined.
It’s been over six years since the introduction of the SMS, and it seems railways have not
embraced the philosophy fully enough for the system to function as intended. Until they
do, the RSA must offer strong penalties at a level that encourages full and immediate
compliance, increase TC’s oversight, provide additional facilitation for compliance, and
strengthen enforcement. Otherwise, in today’s environment where there will always be a
temptation to reduce costs, we leave the fox guarding the henhouse.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments.
Respectfully submitted,
David Moorhouse
Legislative Representative,



Gary E said...

Anonymous DM
This isn't what I was looking for. But I have read this report and Mr. Moorehouse submission.
He is entirely correct in surmising that downloading the safety system to the railroads themselves does not work. Kind of like the police policing the police. What we have recently seen in that regard definitely does not work.Or it could be akin to the Campbell governments butchering of the Workers Compensation Board.
No, the piece I am trying to find deals with the BC provincial government prior to 2001 making a submission on rail governance. I had seen it but silly me I didn't download it.

Gary E said...

For a little more indepth reporting on this article visit http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com and http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com