Seven years after the first passengers boarded Waterloo Region’s ION light-rail system, the consortium responsible for constructing and operating it says the project still has not been declared finally complete.
That unresolved certification dispute now sits at the centre of a $110-million lawsuit against the Region of Waterloo.
GrandLinq GP and its construction partners allege the Region caused costly delays by failing to provide required property access, mishandling utility-relocation obligations and refusing to pay compensation promised under the project agreement.
They also accuse the Region of withholding a final completion certificate by relying on what the lawsuit calls “contrived allegations” of technical non-compliance.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The Region has not filed a publicly reported statement of defence and says it will respond through the court process.
The lawsuit therefore does not establish that Waterloo Region owes $110 million—or that the alleged deficiencies are insignificant.
But the dispute raises a question that goes well beyond construction history: How can a railway that has operated since June 2019, carried millions of passengers and collected more than $70 million in fare revenue remain contractually unfinished in 2026?
Who is suing whom?
The claim was filed in Kitchener Superior Court by GrandLinq GP and GrandLinq Contractors.
GrandLinq GP is the private consortium that entered a long-term public-private partnership with the Region in May 2014. Its participants include corporate entities connected to Plenary, Meridiam, Aecon and Keolis.
GrandLinq Contractors is identified as a partnership involving Aecon Construction Group and Peter Kiewit Sons.
Under the original arrangement, GrandLinq was responsible for designing, building, financing, operating and maintaining the 19-kilometre Stage 1 railway between Conestoga and Fairway stations.
The Region retained ownership of the system, set fares and service levels, collected passenger revenue and monitored GrandLinq’s performance.
The original project was presented as an approximately $818-million capital undertaking. GrandLinq’s new claim seeks approximately $110 million in damages and other relief connected to alleged delays, disruption, unpaid obligations and the Region’s continued refusal to certify final completion.
The property problem: more than 500 sites
One of GrandLinq’s most significant allegations concerns temporary access rights and right-of-way designations involving more than 500 properties along the route.
Building an urban railway requires more than land for the tracks. Contractors may need temporary access to private property to relocate utilities, establish work areas, modify entrances, install infrastructure or complete restoration.
GrandLinq alleges the Region failed to provide some of those rights when required.
According to the claim, the consortium responded by changing construction sequences, acquiring access itself and redesigning portions of the railway alignment. It says those changes increased labour, equipment and material costs.
The Region has not publicly conceded that it breached those obligations. Its eventual defence may dispute how many access rights were late, whether GrandLinq bore some responsibility or whether the costs claimed were properly documented.
Four major disruption points
The claim also refers to a December 2017 agreement concerning “major impact events.” Those reportedly included delays relocating Kitchener Utilities gas infrastructure, relocation of the CN Huron Spur, utility work connected to the King Street grade separation and property access near Conestoga Mall.
GrandLinq acknowledges receiving some compensation but says it was not paid everything required under the agreement.
In December 2017, the Region increased the Stage 1 budget from $818 million to approximately $868 million. At the time, utility relocations and vehicle delays were identified as major cost pressures.
The lawsuit indicates that at least some construction compensation issues were not wrapped up—or did not remain settled.
What does “final completion” mean?
Passenger service does not necessarily equal contractual completion.
Large infrastructure agreements generally use several stages of certification. Substantial completion can permit a project to enter service despite relatively minor outstanding work. Final completion normally comes later, after deficiencies, documentation, testing, legal obligations and other closeout requirements have been satisfied.
For ION, an independent certifier was jointly appointed by the Region and GrandLinq. Certification matters because it can release payments, conclude construction obligations and settle responsibility for deficiencies.
GrandLinq alleges the Region has refused to allow or recognize final completion despite seven years of passenger service.
Its argument is that if the outstanding issues endangered safe operation, the Region could have suspended service, directed repairs or hired another contractor to complete remedial work. A system can, however, be considered safe enough to operate while still failing to meet every contractual design requirement.
The unanswered question is exactly which technical requirements remain disputed, how serious they are and why they have not been resolved.
The public record contains a significant contradiction
A June 2020 regional staff report provides important context.
At that time, staff told council that GrandLinq was continuing to address “minor deficiencies from the construction phase” that were required before final completion. The report expressly described those deficiencies as “not safety related.”
The newly filed claim, however, says the Region is now relying on technical non-compliances that it alleges affect safe operation or create a risk of service failure.
Both descriptions may not refer to precisely the same items. New deficiencies may have been identified after 2020, or the Region’s assessment may have changed.
Still, the discrepancy demands an explanation. The Region has not publicly released a current list of the disputed deficiencies.
An award once presented ION as a partnership success
The lawsuit also clashes with the public account both parties helped present after the railway opened.
A detailed 2020 case study from the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships gave ION a national award for service delivery. It described the project as a successful collaboration that transferred risk appropriately, achieved estimated savings and adapted to vehicle-delivery problems.
The case study said GrandLinq completed construction within the adjusted construction timeframe. It praised continuing cooperation among the Region, GrandLinq and Keolis.
It also contained warnings that now look prescient. GrandLinq representatives said future projects would benefit from earlier engagement with utilities and regulators, clearer permitting requirements and more precisely defined design specifications.
Is the lawsuit too late?
Ontario normally requires a civil claim to be commenced within two years of its discovery. That does not necessarily mean two years from the original construction delay.
Under Ontario’s Limitations Act, the period generally begins when a claimant knew—or reasonably should have known—that it had suffered loss, who caused it and that a court proceeding was an appropriate way to seek a remedy.
GrandLinq may argue its claim did not become legally actionable until the Region definitively refused payment, refused certification or exhausted a contractual dispute-resolution process. The Region could argue the contractors knew years ago that they had incurred additional costs and should have sued sooner.
No court has ruled on that question.
What is the potential cost to taxpayers?
The headline exposure is $110 million, but that is the amount claimed—not an invoice and not a judgment.
The Region could defeat the action, settle it for a smaller amount or be ordered to pay some or all of the damages, potentially with interest and legal costs. GrandLinq will have to prove both liability and the value of the losses it attributes to the Region.
It is not publicly established whether insurance would cover any portion.
The Region’s 2024 financial statements separately reported approximately $113.6 million in remaining principal payments connected to GrandLinq’s original long-term project financing. That existing liability is not the lawsuit and should not be added to the claim as though both were new costs.
Legal bills will accumulate regardless of the outcome.
Could this affect ION service?
There is no evidence that the lawsuit will stop trains or immediately affect passenger service.
GrandLinq remains embedded in the operating and maintenance structure of Stage 1. The dispute concerns construction completion and compensation, not a request to shut down the railway.
Nevertheless, the parties must continue working together on maintenance, performance monitoring and capital rehabilitation while accusing one another of bad faith and contractual breaches.
What does it mean for Stage 2 to Cambridge?
The lawsuit does not directly halt the proposed ION extension from Kitchener to Cambridge.
Stage 2 remains a separate project requiring funding, procurement and implementation decisions. But the lessons are directly relevant.
Before launching another major rail contract, the Region should be able to explain whether all necessary property rights will be obtained before construction, who will bear utility-relocation risk, how compensation events will be resolved, what completion certificates will require and how disputes will be disclosed.
A lawsuit alleging that hundreds of access rights were unavailable and final certification remains outstanding seven years after opening is a warning about how Stage 2 contracts should be written and managed.
What the public still needs to know
Meaningful transparency would require publication, subject to legitimate legal redactions, of the statement of claim, the Region’s eventual defence, the disputed completion requirements, the current deficiency list, independent-certifier findings, relevant agreements, payments and council reports.
The Region is justified in avoiding public argument while litigation is active. It is not justified in allowing “before the courts” to become a permanent substitute for basic public accounting.
Residents do not need officials to predict who will win. They need to know why a publicly funded rail system that opened in 2019 apparently remains unfinished under its governing contract.
The dispute is not simply over whether GrandLinq deserves another $110 million. It is over whether the public-private structure successfully transferred construction risk as promised—or left taxpayers carrying a problem that remained largely invisible for seven years.