How We Work at Resolving Disputes
The Agency's role in Dispute Resolution
Each year, numerous people and organizations turn to the Agency looking for ways to resolve their disputes about transportation matters.
The Agency has a mandate and the expertise to resolve disputes about:
- transportation services;
- fares, rates and charges;
- terms and conditions of carriage; and
- accessibility.
Before filing a complaint with the Agency, a dissatisfied party is expected to first bring the complaint directly to the transportation service provider. If this approach does not resolve the complaint, the Agency can accept a request to investigate the complaint further.
How we resolve disputes
Common sense and decades of experience have taught us that the most effective way to resolve disputes, as with virtually every other aspect of one's life, is by talking. It sounds simple and it often is. We encourage parties in a dispute to freely and rationally discuss an issue with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution.
Last year, over 88% of complaints brought by individual consumers were resolved informally, either through facilitation or mediation. Not only are acceptable solutions found relatively quickly, but both parties usually wind up saving considerable time and expense by resolving the issue without resorting to the Agency's formal adjudicated process – making this informal approach a true win-win situation.
The Agency resolved 425 disputes in 2009-10.
Of these,
- 366 were resolved through facilitation; and
- 12 were resolved through mediation.
Additionally, of the 112 active cases in formal adjudication:
- 47 were resolved through decisions issued; and
- 27 were withdrawn.
For more on the Agency's dispute resolution processes,
go to www.cta.gc.ca/eng/disputes
For detailed statistics on dispute resolution,
go to www.cta.gc.ca/eng/dr-stats
The Agency offers four distinct ways to resolve disputes:
Facilitation: Facilitation involves an informal discussion with the parties to a dispute on how to resolve the issue at hand. Agency staff contribute their expert knowledge of the federal transportation system in order to aid in resolution.
Mediation: Although more structured than facilitation, this form of dispute resolution also keeps the dialogue informal. The Agency may appoint a mediator, who works with the parties to keep talks focussed on a viable solution. There is a 30-day deadline for both parties to reach an agreement.
Adjudication: In this formal process, the Members of the Agency – the quasi-judicial decision-makers – review the parties' submissions and evidence, then provide an analysis of the situation and a reasoned decision that has the weight of law.
Arbitration: Final offer arbitration is triggered by a submission from a shipper, administered by the Agency and conducted by an independent arbitrator who will select either the final offer of the shipper or the carrier. Arbitration, another process where the arbitrator has more latitude in making a decision, can be requested by all parties to certain specific railway matters that are under dispute.
In 2009-10, the Agency received 26 requests for mediation.
Of these,
- 3 were declined by the respondent;
- 9 were withdrawn;
- 14 were mediated; and
- 12 were successfully resolved.
Additionally, of the 112 active cases in formal adjudication:
- 5 related to rail disputes;
- 6 related to accessibility disputes; and
- 1 related to a marine dispute.
Striving for efficiency in dispute resolution
Although the Agency has addressed a number of dispute case processing issues, implemented process improvements and established new practices that promote increased productivity and efficiency, meeting the 120-day target for the resolution of certain complex cases through the formal adjudicative process continues to be a challenge.
Informal processes present an attractive alternative when resolving straightforward disputes. However, cases that are not resolved through informal methods tend to be more adversarial in nature, adding to the complexity of these cases. Certain formal cases may also be without precedent, or raise broad systemic or policy issues. Therefore, additional information and time may be required by the parties and extensions of time are not uncommon.
The Agency has and will continue to review its formal adjudicative process to improve the timeliness of its decisions. As part of its review, an extensive analysis was undertaken of all the steps of the adjudicative process. The analysis demonstrated that the 120-day deadline for issuing decisions leaves little leeway for many of the procedural issues that are invariably raised in adjudication and must be addressed to ensure natural justice is satisfied.
The Agency must be able to take the time it needs to carefully consider and weigh the evidence before it, with full due process provided to all parties. That responsibility, added to the increasing complexity of certain cases, makes it more difficult for the Agency to meet its 120-day performance target for such cases.
To address this challenge, the Agency will conduct a review of the Canadian Transportation Agency General Rules to identify alternative approaches that would better respond to the differing needs of the Agency and its clients in disputes and determinations, as well as provide more clearer guidance to self-represented parties appearing before the Agency.
Other initiatives will continue to be pursued to assist the Agency in addressing its workload and performance target challenges.
Performance Target
Target Achieved
100% of mediation cases resolved within 30 days
Performance Target
Target Achieved
65% of disputes resolved formally within 120 days
