When CN refused to reopen the Bridge for vehicles, Thunder Bay brought an application for a determination of its contractual rights under the 1906 Agreement. Two provisions of this Agreement are central to this appeal: s. 3, in which Grand Trunk Pacific agreed to give Fort William “the perpetual right to cross the said bridge for street railway, vehicle and foot traffic”; and s. 5, in which CN agreed to “maintain the bridge in perpetuity”.
If a mega-corp can't weasel out of a deal to maintain a bridge forever, I don't see how a software company can weasel out either.
CN tried all sorts of arguments, too, which essentially boiled down to "things are different now!", and "how could we have known!", which of course are meaningless arguments.
In 1906, the Canadian National Railway Company signed a contract for upkeep of a bridge, in perpetuity(forever):
https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2018/2018ONCA0517.pdf
When CN refused to reopen the Bridge for vehicles, Thunder Bay brought an application for a determination of its contractual rights under the 1906 Agreement. Two provisions of this Agreement are central to this appeal: s. 3, in which Grand Trunk Pacific agreed to give Fort William “the perpetual right to cross the said bridge for street railway, vehicle and foot traffic”; and s. 5, in which CN agreed to “maintain the bridge in perpetuity”.
If a mega-corp can't weasel out of a deal to maintain a bridge forever, I don't see how a software company can weasel out either.
CN tried all sorts of arguments, too, which essentially boiled down to "things are different now!", and "how could we have known!", which of course are meaningless arguments.