Talk:Canadian Transportation Agency

Some Proposed Edits

- Explain what this article is about as not every editor will be familiar with the subject. Copying the first sentence from the article, for example "Meera Dewan is a social-issue documentary filmmaker based in New Delhi, India." is often enough.

This article is about the Canadian Transportation Agency, an agency of the canadian federal government that provides regulations on various aspects of the Canadian transportation system. They generally have jurisdiction in licencing and regulations for airlines, railways and some marine operations while also performing a consumer rights role in the Rail and air industries.

- Indicate if information should be added to the article or subtracted from it.

The changes that I am proposing update the article to reflect the current state of the agency, its mandate and positioning has changed since the page was last updated.

- Explain in clear words what needs to be changed about the article. Add a suggestion for the changes that can be copy-pasted by the editor if you can.

As an employee of the CTA I have been asked to request that the article for the CTA be updated to reflect the changes that the organization has undergone. Ideally the article would be replaced with the text found below.

↓Suggestions for changes↓

Extended content

The Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) is an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal and regulator that has, with respect to all matters necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction, all the powers of a superior court. It oversees the Canadian national transportation system, including air, rail, marine and interprovincial bus. It reports to Parliament through the Minister of Transport. The CTA has three mandates: To help ensure that the national transportation system runs efficiently and smoothly in the interests of all Canadians: those who work and invest in it; the producers, shippers, travellers and businesses who rely on it; and the communities where it operates. To protect the human right of persons with disabilities to an accessible transportation network. To provide consumer protection for air passengers. The CTA's decision-makers are regular Members appointed by the Governor-in–Council, and temporary Members appointed by the Minister of Transport from a Governor-in-Council-approved roster. Members' key functions include making adjudicative rulings, regulations, and regulatory determinations, as well as designating CTA staff to exercise the role of enforcement officers. In May 2016, the Agency initiated the Regulatory Modernization Initiative (RMI) – a full review of all the regulations, guidelines and tools that it administers. During 2017-2018, the Agency completed the first two phases of the Initiative, focusing on accessible transportation and air transportation. Tools To help advance these mandates, the CTA has three tools at its disposal: Rule-making: to develop and apply ground rules that establish the rights and responsibilities of transportation service providers and users and that level the playing field among competitors. These rules can take the form of binding regulations or less formal guidelines, codes of practice or interpretation notes. Dispute resolution: to resolve disputes that arise between transportation service providers on the one hand, and their clients and neighbours on the other, using a range of tools from facilitation and mediation to arbitration and adjudication. For example, disputes could arise from complaints about transportation services, fares, rates and/or charges. Information provision: to provide information on the transportation system, the rights and responsibilities of transportation providers and users, and the Agency's legislation and services. Legislation and Regulations Legislation The CTA's responsibilities are primarily set out in the Canada Transportation Act, but it has responsibilities for carrying out provisions of other Acts: Canada Marine Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act Coasting Trade Act Energy Supplies Emergency Act Pilotage Act Railway Relocation and Crossing Act Railway Safety Act Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 Regulations The CTA has sole responsibility for the following regulations: Air Transportation Regulations Canadian Transportation Agency Designated Provisions Regulations Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations Railway Costing Regulations Railway Interswitching Regulations Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations Railway Traffic and Passenger Tariffs Regulations Railway Traffic Liability Regulations The CTA shares responsibility on these regulations with other federal entities: Carriers and Transportation and Grain Handling Undertakings Information Regulations Railway Company Pay Out of Excess Revenue for the Movement of Grain Regulations The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc. Regulations The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd. Regulations See also Rail regulations in Canada External links Canadian Transportation Agency website - Provide links to sources which support any claims made https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/national-transportation-system https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/mandate-tools-values https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/at-heart-transportation-a-moving-history

slipslopsloot Slipslopsloot (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Large portions of text from your proposed draft are insufficiently paraphrased from the source material, per WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE. A list of this text may be found here. Anything added to the article ought to be written in your own words, and text which does not meet this requirement will not be added to the article. Regards,   SPINTENDO          21:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Some More Proposed Edits

- Explain what this article is about as not every editor will be familiar with the subject. Copying the first sentence from the article, for example "Meera Dewan is a social-issue documentary filmmaker based in New Delhi, India." is often enough.

This article is about the Canadian Transportation Agency, an agency of the Canadian federal government that provides regulations on various aspects of the Canadian transportation system. They generally have jurisdiction in licensing and regulations for airlines, railways and some marine operations while also performing a consumer rights role in the Rail and air industries.

- Indicate if information should be added to the article or subtracted from it.

This change removes some now factually incorrect information and adds some information about legislation and regulations that the CTA works with.

- Explain in clear words what needs to be changed about the article. Add a suggestion for the changes that can be copy-pasted by the editor if you can.

As an employee of the CTA I have been asked to request that the article for the CTA be updated to reflect the changes that the organization has undergone. I have been asked to remove some now factually incorrect information about the agency's structure and add to the section outlining the agencys legislation and regulations.

SUBTRACT

The Agency is divided into five branches: Chair's Office; Corporate Management Branch; Legal and Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Branch; Dispute Resolution Branch; Industry Regulation and Determinations Branch.

ADD - This section expands upon the agency's legislative and regulatory responsibilities.

Legislation and Regulations Legislation The CTA's responsibilities are primarily set out in the Canada Transportation Act, but it has responsibilities for carrying out provisions of other Acts:

• Canada Marine Act
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
• Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act
• Coasting Trade Act
• Energy Supplies Emergency Act
• Pilotage Act
• Railway Relocation and Crossing Act
• Railway Safety Act
• Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987

Regulations The CTA has sole responsibility for the following regulations:

• Air Transportation Regulations
• Canadian Transportation Agency Designated Provisions Regulations
• Personnel Training for the Assistance of Persons with Disabilities Regulations Railway Costing Regulations
• Railway Interswitching Regulations
• Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations
• Railway Traffic and Passenger Tariffs Regulations
• Railway Traffic Liability Regulations

The CTA shares responsibility on these regulations with other federal entities:

• Carriers and Transportation and Grain Handling Undertakings Information Regulations
• Railway Company Pay Out of Excess Revenue for the Movement of Grain Regulations
• The Jacques-Cartier and Champlain Bridges Inc. Regulations
• The Seaway International Bridge Corporation, Ltd. Regulations

See also

• Rail regulations in Canada

External links

• Canadian Transportation Agency website

- Provide links to sources which support any claims made

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/national-transportation-system https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/mandate-tools-values https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/publication/at-heart-transportation-a-moving-history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipslopsloot (talk • contribs)

Reply 18-MAY-2018

May I suggest speaking with the editors at WikiProject Canada first, as they would most likely be the best equipped to assist you with this endeavor. If you're unable to make headway with the editors there, please let me know. .spintendo⋅⋅) 19:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I will do so. Thanks for the help! slipslopsloot 08:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for help with editing: COVID-19 controversy

The following statement is inaccurate:

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the advocacy group's request in August 2020, whereupon the advocacy group appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The correct chronology of events is as follows:

May 2020

A judge of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed APR's request for a temporary (interlocutory) injunction. The judge declined to dismiss the case itself, which seeks a permanent injunction.

August 2020

APR asked Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal from dismissal of the temporary (interlocutory) injunction. (The link in the article to this leave to appeal application is correct, but the editor misunderstood what it was referring it.) This leave to appeal is not about the permanent injunction.

October 2020

Federal Court of Appeal judge clears path for hearing of APR's case, holding that the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias of the Canadian Transportation Agency merits a full hearing.

Gabor Lukacs (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi @Gabor Lukacs: I have moved your request edit to the bottom of the talk page per WP:BOTTOMPOST. Do you have a conflict of interest with this topic? Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Z1720: I am the president of Air Passenger Rights, so I would rather err on the side of letting someone else do the edits. I am happy to provide the information necessary for the edits. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your hesitation and agree that you should not edit this article directly. Whenever you use the request edit template I suggest adding the connected contributor template at the top, like I have on this page. This fulfils the explicit requirement in WP:COI.

As for your request, can you post the exact text you want in the article? This will make it easier for editors to evaluate and add. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Z1720:. It is the following sentence that should be corrected:

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the advocacy group's request in August 2020, whereupon the advocacy group appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The correct statement is:

In May 2020, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the advocacy group's request for a temporary (interlocutory) injunction, but declined to dismiss the case itself that sought a permanent injunction. In August 2020, the advocacy group asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear an appeal with respect the the denial of the temporary injunction. In October 2020, a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal cleared the path for hearing of advocacy group's case, holding that the issue of reasonable apprehension of bias of the Canadian Transportation Agency merits a full hearing.

Gabor Lukacs (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi @Gabor Lukacs:, after analysing the section in the article, and your proposed additions, I have determined that this litigation has been given WP:UNDUE weight in the article. The article is about the CTA, not a lawsuit against the CTA, and it should not have the level of detail (and promotional language) that was previously included. I have reduced this section and recommend that it be expanded when the Supreme Court decides if it is accepting the case (and further expansion if the Supreme Court accepts the case and renders a decision). For now, I think the section is the correct length given the topic of this article and its relative importance. I have now closed this ticket. Please post any comments or questions you have below. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Z1720:, the statement on the page continues to be inaccurate. There seems to be a misunderstanding both as to the dates and as to what the court decided. There was no judicial decision in August 2020 at all. The Federal Court of Appeal did not dismiss the case, but only declined to grant a temporary injunction. Denying a temporary injunction is not uncommon, but that is not to be conflated with the outcome of the lawsuit itself. The case itself was cleared to proceed. The Supreme Court of Canada is not asked to hear an appeal about the whole case, just about the temporary injunction. The case in the Federal Court of Appeal was cleared to proceed in October 2020. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: To suggest that the case was dismissed, when actually the court declined to dismiss the case is not only inaccurate, but may also be libelous. For clarity and precision, here is what the Federal Court of Appeal ruled:

[39] Because it says that APR’s application for judicial review does not relate to a matter that is amenable to judicial review, the CTA argues in its memorandum of fact and law that the application should be dismissed. There is, however, no motion currently before this Court seeking such relief, and any such motion would, in any event, have to be decided by a panel of judges, rather than a single judge. Consequently, I decline to make the order sought.

References

Hi @Gabor Lukacs: I would stay away from statements like to dismiss the case is not only inaccurate, but may also be libelous. Editors are not allowed to make legal threats on Wikipedia. While I do not think your intention is to issue a legal threat, I think talking about Wikipedia being sued over this content is entering a murky grey-zone that we want to avoid.

As for your concerns with what the court decided: Canadian Press article published August 4 states The Air Passenger Rights organization has sought leave to appeal a Federal Court of Appeal decision that dismissed the group's attempt to compel the Canadian Transportation Agency to promptly remove a statement on refunds from its website. I interpreted this quote as saying that, in Aug 2020, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed APR's motion to force CTA to remove the statement about refunds from their website. Upon closer examination of the source, I can see that I was wrong when I included that the ruling came out in August because the source does not verify that information. Thus I have removed the Aug 2020 date.

However, the Canadian Press source does not verify when the ruling from the Appeals Court was issued. Although you have verified that there was a ruling on May 22, 2020, with the canlii link, the Canada Press source does not verify that the May 22 judgement is the one that the APR group is appealing. The only source provided so far that verifies the Supreme Court appeal is the Canadian Press source, so I am using it to verify the information. I am choosing not to change the information about a dismissal at this time because The Canadian Press is verifying the information.

It is possible that the Canadian Press source is wrong. However, I would not consider changing the information to your proposed text unless a) a correction has been issued by the Canadian Press stating your interpretation is correct, and a link is provided to said correction, or b) another source with equal or greater reliability is provided that verifies what the Supreme Court lawsuit is appealing. It is preferable that you use secondary sources like news articles as these sources because primary sources, like court documents, are considered less reliable and Wikipedia editors should avoid analysing documents. Please post below if you have any questions or are able to provide more sources to help verify information. Z1720 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: I was not making a legal threat, but drawing your attention to the seriousness of factual errors of such nature and the harm they can cause.

The secondary source you are looking for has already been posted earlier: the article, from May 22, 2020 (the date the ruling was issued) confirms that what was dismissed is the temporary injunction, for the prompt removal of the statement from the Agency's website pending final determination of the case. The article goes on to state: "But the court goes on to rule that because the statement isn’t a legal document, there aren’t grounds to force the CTA to take the statement off their website until the Court of Appeal makes a final decision."

You asked for a specific article from the Canadian Press, so here it is:This addresses the ruling from October 2020.

The source of the confusion is that the May 2020 ruling was about a temporary injunction that would be in place until the court issues a final decision in the case. The October 2020 was about the merits of the case, and the judge ruled that the case would proceed to a hearing.

In the August 4, 2020 Canadian Press article, you are overlooking the words "leave to appeal" and "promptly" in the title. In other words: (1) this is not an appeal yet, but only a request that the SCC hear the case; and (2) this relates to the May 2020 ruling, about the temporary injunction, and not the merits of the case itself. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: You may find the following entry of some assistance on understanding the chronology and the current status of the proceeding: Interlocutory injunction.

References

@Gabor Lukacs: I removed the last sentence talking about the Supreme Court appeal in light of The Canada Press article stating that the Appeals Court will hear the case [1]. I think other information about this lawsuit (whether the case will be heard, lower court decisions, etc.) would be too much detail to include in the article. Therefore, I am going to leave this section as a two-sentence statement. When the Appeals Court issues a ruling that can be added to the section. Z1720 (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you. The statement is now accurate, but the reference for it (the August 4, 2020 CP article) would probably cause more confusion, because it talks about the Supreme Court of Canada leave application (which relates to the interlocutory injunction), and not the merits of the application. A better source might be this one. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gabor Lukacs:  Done Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Z1720:. Gabor Lukacs (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)