Where a shipper disagrees with the manner in which the rail carrier is applying existing rates and charges rather than with the levels at which they have been set, it may be possible to obtain relief through a proceeding in court. For example, where two or more tariff rates have potential application to a shipper’s traffic, the shipper is entitled to the most favourable rate that applies. Similarly, where a tariff provision in respect of ancillary charges and rules is capable of more than one plausible interpretation, a court will tend to adopt the interpretation that is more favourable to the shipper. In this respect, railway tariffs are similar to other types of arrangements where the wording that governs the relationship between the parties is chosen by one of them without any input or negotiation from the other.

The presumption of lawfulness associated with publication in a tariff applies only to rates for the movement of traffic - it does not apply to ancillary charges or rules that cannot be characterized as "rates for the movement of traffic". This may leave some additional scope for a court to set aside particularly onerous or unreasonable conditions.

With respect to rates, charges and conditions contained in a confidential contract, the courts will likewise have the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes over how the contractual wording governing rates and charges should be interpreted and applied.