7 Can. Ry. Cas. 125.]
Kerr v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 207.
DISCRIMINATION SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES MAIN AND BRANCH LINE MILE-
AGE LOW-GRADE TONNAGE.
Upon a complaint under ss. 315, 334 of the Railway Act, 1906, by the
Cement Co. that the through toll of 1.50 per ton on bituminous coal from
Black Rock, X.Y., to Marlbank, Ont., was unjustly discriminatory and
unreasonable, because, (1) there should be no difference in the tolls on
coal to the applicants competing with similar factories receiving more
favourable treatment, (2) on the basis of mileage, (3) as compared with
tolls to other points such as Belleville and Kingston. From Black Rock
to Xapanee, a distance of 237 miles, the coal moved over the Grand
Trunk Ry. and thence to Marlbank, a distance of 36 miles, over the Bay
of Quinte Ry. Out of the through toll the Grand Trunk received $1.0.1.
or 70 per cent., and the Bay of Quinte the balance: Held (1), and the
"equality" clause of section 315 was not intended to equalize the cost of
production between similar competing factories, but applies only when
such factories were given more favourable treatment under similar cir-
cumstances and conditions of traffic. (2) That a comparison of mileage
as if both hauls were on the same railway line was not a proper method
of comparison, difference in traffic conditions being in general more im-
portant. (3) That the principle recognized in the Almonte Knitting Co.
ease that a higher toll may be charged to points on a branch line than
to points on a main line, though at a less distance from the junction
point, applies with greater force in favour of a light traffic and low-grade
tonnage railway as compared witli a heavy traffic and high-grade tonnage
railway. (4) That the toll to Marlbank cannot be compared with com-
pelled tolls to other points such as Belleville and Kingston, where there
is not effective water competition to Marlbank on traffic important in
amount. (5) That, upon the evidence, the toll charged is not unreason-
able. (6) The Grand Trunk having stated its willingness to reduce its
division of the through rate to $1.00 per ton, the Bay of Quinte to par-
ticipate in such through rate, receiving thirty per cent, the Board ap-
proved a rate of $1.43 per ton. [Almonte Knitting Co. v. Can. Pac. and
Michigan Central Ry. Cos., 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 441, followed.]
Canadian Portland Cement Co. v. Grand Trunk & Bay of Quinte Ry.
Cos., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 209.
[Followed in Dominion Sugar Co. v. Can. Freight Assn., 14 Can. Ry.
Cas. 188; Imperial Rice Milling Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry.
Cas. 375; Western Retail Lumbermens' Assn. v. Can. Pac., Can. Northern
et al. Ry. Cos., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 155; Dominion Millers Assn. v. Canadian
Freight* Assn., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 83; Waterloo v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 24
Can. Ry. Cas. 143.]
MAIN AND BRANCH LINK TRAFFIC SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES DISCRIMINA-
On a complaint that higher rates were charged from a point on a branch
line for a shorter distance than from points on the main line to the same
point thereby constituting unjust discrimination between different locali-
ties within the provisions of s. 315 of the Railway Act, 1906: Held, that
traffic originating on a branch line is not carried to a certain point, tinder
similar conditions to traffic originating on the main line carried to the
same point until the junction of the branch line with the main line is
reached. [Almonte Knitting Co. v. Can. Pac. and Michigan Central Ry.
7(5i> TOLLS A.VD TARIFFS.
Cos., 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 441, followed.] The rates complained of were equal
for a group of common points on the main line. Held, that although
group rates of necessity result in a certain amount of discrimination, so
long as such discrimination is not undue it is not unreasonable. [Desel
Boettcher Co. v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 12 I.C. Rep. p. 222.]
Held, also, that the difference in the rates complained of did not consti-
tute undue discrimination within the different sections.
Malkin & Sons v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Tan Bark Rates Case), 8
Can. Ry. Cas. 183.
[Followed in Fredericton Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Can.
Ry. Cas. 439; Hunting-Merritt Lumber Co. v. Can. Pac. and British Co-
lumbia Elec. Ry. Cos., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 181.]
LUMBER TARIFF REASONABLENESS EXPORT AND DOMESTIC TOLLS DISCRIM-
On an application to disallow the special tariffs on lumber which be-
came effective May 1, 1908, and restore the tariffs previously in force,
removing the anomalies in the latter without any increase of tolls. The
railways submitted in justification of the increase in tolls, that these
were as favourable as those charged by railways in the United States
and compared favourably with those charged on other building material.
Although lumber had increased greatly in value in the last ten years, the
relative increase in tolls had been comparatively small, and the cost of
operation and maintenance of railways had materially increased during
the same period: Held (1), that speaking generally of the new tariffs
as a whole, the railways have justified the increase in the domestic tolls:
these tariffs should remain effective, and the application should be dis-
missed. (2) That the decision in this matter would not preclude any
one from laying a complaint against any particular toll, alleging unjust
discrimination or undue or unreasonable preference. (3) That the rail-
ways should be ordered to file tariffs establishing export tolls to Montreal,
on the whole, lower than the domestic.
Canadian Lumbermen's Assn. v. Grand Trunk, Can. Pac. and Can. North-
ern Ry. Cos., 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 306.
[Referred to in Canadian Lumbermen, etc. v. Grand Trunk, etc., 11
Can. Ry. Cas. 344; followed in Graham Co. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 22
Can. Ry. Cas. 355.]
DISCRIMINATION MILEAGE BASIS COAL TOLLS.
On a complaint that the tolls on coal both east and westbound from
Lundbreck unjustly discriminated against it and in favour of Lethbridge.
The railway company submitted that its tolls were based upon Leth-
bridge, the eastbound basing point and Fernie, the westbound basing point.
Taking Lethridge as the eastbound basing point the other coal mining and
shipping points were given arbitraries over or under the Lethbridge toll
according to their location. This tariff of tolls has produced the following
anomaly as regards eastbound traffic: by a too rigid adherence to a
mileage basis, thereby causing a sudden break in the toll a lower toll
is given to Lethbridge than to Lundbreck in shipping to a common des-
tination where the difference in mileage is very slight. In regard to west-
bound traffic the following anomaly exists although the distances from
Ix'thbridge and Lundbreck to Cranbrook are respectively 200 and 126 miles
the toll is only 5 cents in favour of Lundbreck and west of Cranbrook
equal in amount which does not recognize the favourable geographical
position of Lundbreck, and is not defensible: Held (1), that the appli-
TOLLS A^~D TARIFFS. 763
cation should be dismissed; mmjmd discrimination not having been proven.
(2 'That more favourable geographical position and superior quality of
coal are factors to be take* into consideration when alleging unjust dis-
crimination. (Zf That the railway company should thoroughly check ita
tariff and either explain or justify any departure from the basis of tolls
it has established, and also correct the too rigid adherence to a mileage
basis. (4| That the railway company should revise and reissue its special
tariff from its Lethbridge, Crow's Nest, and Cranbrook section westward
so as to make these tolls relatively reasonable to the special tariff tolls
now in force or as they may be reduced from Lethbridge.
Galbraith Coal Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 325.
[Followed in Great West. Byers Mine Cos. et al. v. Grand Trunk Pacific
Ry. COL, 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 175.]
JOEST TOLLS DlSCJU MIX ATIOX
Complaints have arisen that traffic has, when moving on a through
toll been charged a higher toll than would have been obtained from a com-
bination of the local tolls, an order was proposed declaring that (an joint
tariffs should not be fifed which are in excess of the sum of the locals:
(b) that joint tolls at present in existence should be disallowed when
they exceed the sum of the locals: Held (It, that it is a fundamental
proposition, when a toll joint or limited to points situate on one line of
railway has come into force under the Railway Act. it is the only legal
toll in respect of the traffic and between the points mentioned. (2) That
the reasonableness of a toll cannot be determined aside from the concrete
conditions to which it is applicable. (31 That the charging of a joint
toll in excess of the sum of the locals is prima facie unreasonable and
unjustly discriminatory, and the onus of disproof should in individual
complaints be on the railway or railways concerned. \4t That the Board
whose jurisdiction is in no sense retroactive, cannot grant a refund where
a toll has become legally operative. (5) That it is not necessary or ex-
pedient that the proposed order should be made.
Re Joint Freight and Passenger Tariffs. 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 343.
[Followed in Fnllerton etc. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. GOL, 17 Can. Ry. Cas.
79; Montreal Board of Trade v. Can. Pacific. Ottawa & Xew York and
Intercolonial Ry. Cos.. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. .]
EXCESSIVE TOLLS DISCHJIIXATIOS COMPETTTIOX.
Complaint of unjust discrimination against the respondent for charging
excessive tolls. The applicant made shipments, by the respondent's line,
of ores and concentrates from Caribou to Skagway and from that port
to destination. Skagway is an ocean port and Caribou an intermediate
point, where the applicant's mine is located, a shorter distance from
Skagway than White Horse, from which latter point the Atlas Mining Co.
a competitor of the applicant, makes similar shipments. The applicant
complained that the tolls on his shipments from Caribou to Skagway and
the wharfage and ocean tolls at the latter point were so excessive that
he could not operate his mine profitably, and would be compelled to shut
it down unless the tolls were lowered. The respondent contended that on
account of the large amount of traffic the Atlas Mining Co. had con-
tracted to furnish their traffic was and would always be larger than that of
the applicant and that the preferential rates given to the Atlas Co. by
their contract could be justified under subs. 3. s. 315: Held (It. that
it had not been proved that the Atlas Co. shipments were and would al.
ways be larger than those of the applicant and the respondent had not
764 TOLLS AXD TARIFFS.
discharged the burden placed upon it by s. 77 of proving that the rates
in question did not constitute an unjust discrimination. (2) That the
provisions of the respondent's contract with the Atlas Co. as to tolls con-
stituted an unjust discrimination againt the applicant. (3) That every
form of discrimination against the applicant must cease and he must be
placed upon an absolutely equal footing with the Atlas Co. not only as to
rail tolls, but as to wharfage ami ocean tolls as far as the respondent is
able to place him. (4) That the respondent must file within thirty days
a tariff giving a toll of $1.75 per ton for the applicant from Caribou to
Skagway as compared with the rate of $2.50 per ton for the Atlas Co.
from White Horse to Skagway. (5) That tariffs covering the tolls charged
by the respondent to the Atlas Co. must be iiled within a reasonable time.
Conrad Mines v. White Pass & Yukon Ry. Co., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 138.
[Referred to in Davvson Board of Trade v. White Pass & Yukon Ry.
Co. (No. 2), 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 403.]
RICE DISCRIMINATION IMPORT AND DOMESTIC TOLLS THROUGH OCEAN-
AND-RAIL TOLLS COMPETITION JOINT TARIFF.
Complaint that the tolls charged on rice cleaned in tli'e Province of Que-
bec and shipped from Montreal to other Canadian distributing points
unjustly discriminated against the applicant and that preferential tolls
were charged on rice cleaned in Great Britain or foreign countries, car-
ried by ocean steamships to Montreal, and there reshipped in competition
with the applicant. The railway companies maintained that the import
tolls were proportionals of through-ocean-and-rail tolls from Great Brit-
ain and could not fairly be compared with domestic tolls on traffic carried
under dissimilar circumstances and conditions: That such import tolls were
kept down by competition with railways in the United States. It appeared
that the import tolls via Montreal were lower than the lowest import tolls
on competing railways in the United States for the purpose of diverting
traffic to the St. Lawrence route and offsetting the higher marine insur-
ance rates charged by that route: Held (1), that there was no ground
for complaint against domestic tolls on rice in carloads (C.L.) from
Montreal to interior points. (2) That although Canadian railway com-
panies have been entitled to charge higher domestic tolls than railway
companies in the United States with heavier traffic, the tolls on rice in
less than carloads (L.C.L.) were not proportionate to the differences in
circumstances and conditions, and should be reduced. (3) That while
full relief could be given by granting the applicant L.C.L. commodity
tolls, such a change would disturb the equilibrium between west and east-
bond traffic as provided for in the international and Toronto Board of
Trade Rate Case, No. 3258, and complaints would follow. (4) That the
domestic tolls on rice L.C.L. should be changed from the 3rd to the low-
er 4th class in the Canadian Classification.
Mount Royal Milling & Mfg. Co. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry.
Cos., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 347.
SUGAR BEETS DISCRIMINATION PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES JOINT TAB-
IFF PROPORTIONAL RATE.
Complaint alleging that the tolls charged by the respondent on sugar
beets were excessive and unjustly discriminatory compared with those
charged to the Dominion Sugar Co. The applicant, a foreign company,
purchased sugar beets from growers along the line of the respondent, agree-
ing to supply free seed, defray the freight charges on sound beets to its
factory in Michigan, U.S., and pay therefor at a flat rate. The Dominion
TOLLS JL\D TARIFFS. T65
Sugar Co. was engaged ia the same business and purchased its sugar
beets under mm arrangement that the growers should par the freight
charges to the factory at WaDaeeburg. Ontario, and be paid for the beets
on the percentage of saccharine nutter contained in them. This latter
agreement resulted in a higher price for the beets than that paid by the
applicant. The respondent charged a low toll on a mileage basis for beets
carried to the factory of the Dominion Sugar Co. at Wallacebnrg. but
charged a higher toll to the same point on beet* destined to the appli-
cant's factory in Michigan. The respondent was only able to charge the
low toll on inbound sugar beets by charging a higher toll on raw sugar
imported for refining, and on the outbound refined sugar and by-products.
The great portion of the freight revenue of the respondent was derived
from this sugar trunk-: Held, (1) that there was no competition in the
refined product between the two sugar companies, and the respondent
was not limiting the market for such product. (21 That under the par-
ticular circumstances and conditions of this ease there was not unnmt
discrimination in the tolls under s. 315 of the Railway Act, 1906. (3)
That under s. 335 of the Act, where traffic mores from Canada to the
United States, it must be covered by a joint tariff which could not be
superseded by a proportional rate filed by one of the participating com-
panies. [Brant Milling Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. COL, 4 Can. Ry. Ca*.
259. at p. 268, followed: Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester. Sheffield
ft Lincolnshire Ry. Co.. 14 Q.D.B. 309; Pickering et aL T. London A North
Western Ry. Cm, 8 Ry. C. Tr. Cas. S3. at p. 108; Texas & Pacific Ry.
Co. T. I.C.C. 162 U. S. 197, at p. 217; Savannah Bureau of Freight t Trans-
portation T. Louisville Nashville Ry. Co.. 8 I.C.C.R. 377. referred to.]
Michigan Sugar Co. v. Chatham, WaDaceburg t Lake Erie Ry. COL. 11
Can. Ry. Cas. 353.
[Followed in Hudson Bay Mining Co. T. Great Northern Ry. Co.. 16 Can.
Ry. Cas. 254: Re Telegraph Tolls. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. L]
MFETJTKCT WHOLESALE Axn Msnuntnao ronrrs
SPECIAL. TAMFTS - AGKEOIE2CTS.
Application by Regina Board of Trade under s*. 314. 339 of the Rail-
way Act, 1906, for a reduction in the tolls on classes one to ten inclusive.
from the head of the lakes to Regina. alleging that there was unjust dis-
crimination against the applicant in favour of Winnipeg and other points
in Manitoba. All tolls are fixed to the west at Fort William and Port
Arthur, the basing points at the head of the hikes, in competition with
Duluth and Minneapolis, similar points in the United States. The Canadian
Northern Ry. Co. one of the respondents, entered into an agreement with
the Government of Manitoba, providing that in consideration of the guar-
antee of certain bonds of the respondent it would reduce its tolls to about
15 per cent of its tariff tolls on all freight other than grain to Fort Wil-
liam and Port Arthur from pouts in Manitoba and rice versa. The Can-
adian Pacific Ry. Co.. the other respondent, reduced its tolls in a similar
manner through stress of competition. The last named respondent also
reduced its tolls voluntarily between the Manitoba boundary and Can-
more and the Crow's Nest : and in consideration of a subsidy to the Crow's
Nest Pass line from the Dominion Government agreed to reduce its tolls
from Fort William and points east to points west thereof. The respond-
ents contended that the circumstances and conditions were not substan-
tially similar and that they were justified in charging a higher toll per
ton mile to Regina than to Winnipeg, and that under the agreements
above-mentioned Regina was not entitled to the benefit of the n iliu liiam
766 TOLLS AX1) TA1UFFS.
made by the respondents. It was also contended that the greater density
of traffic from the head of the Lakes to Winnipeg and other Manitoba
points than to Regina justified the lower toll basis. That Winnipeg
being a wholesale and distributing point had a vested right to tolls on a
lower basis than Regina: Held, (1) that no agreements as to tolls could
defeat the prohibitions and obligations imposed by ss. 77, 315 of the Rail-
way Act. (2) That the reductions were brought about by the different
agreements, and not because of a greater density of traffic. (3) That
Regina as much as Winnipeg was a distributing point within its own zone.
(4) That the special class freight tariffs of the respondents from Fort
William and Port Arthur, unjustly discriminated in favour of Winnipeg
and other Manitoba points to the prejudice and disadvantage of Regina
and points west of the Manitoba boundary. [British Columbia Pacific
Coast Cities v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. (Vancouver Eastbound and Westbound
Rate Case, or Vancouver Interior Rates Case ) , 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 125, at p.
146; Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co./ 8 Can. Ry. Caa.
33, at p. 41, followed.]
Regina Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. and Can. Northern Ry. Cos. (Re-
gina Toll Case), 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 380.
| Affirmed in 44 Can. S.C.R. 328, 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 369, 45 Can. S.C.R.
321, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 203; followed in Edmonton Board of Trade v. Can.
Pac. and Can. North. Ry. Cos., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 395; British Col. Sugar,
etc., Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 354; Re Increase in Pas-
senger and Freight Tolls, 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 49.]
DISCRIMINATION REDUCTION OF KATES.
The order made in the case of Regina Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. and
Can. Northern Ry. Co., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 380, is also to govern rates to
Edmonton, and to comply with that order rates to Edmonton must be
reduced as asked in the complaint.
Edmonton Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. and Can. Northern Ry. Cos.,
11 Can. Ry. Cas. 395.
DISCRIMINATION CIGARS CARLOAD RATING LUXUKY WHOLESALE DISTRI-
Application for a carload rating on cigars shipped from Montreal to
Winnipeg. The applicant manufactured cigars in Montreal and shipped
to a distributing warehouse in Winnipeg. There was no evidence that
any other manufacturer in the east would ship any number of carloads
westward if the application was granted, but the bulk of the traffic would
still move L.C.L. Cigars being a luxury should not be reduced from a
reasonable L.C.L. first-class rating to a fourth-class C.L. as asked for:
Held (1), that if the application was granted other similar manufac-
turers would be unjustly discriminated against. (2) That other luxuries
now rated first-class would contend for similar reductions in tolls. (3)
That the application should be refused until the Board was satisfied that
a C.L. rating would result in a substantial traffic movement.
Ledoux Co. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 3.
[Distinguished in Wallaceburg Cut Glass Works v. Canadian Freight
Assn., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 408.]
DISCRIMINATION PERSONS OR LOCALITIES DIFFERENTIALS.
Application to remove the differential toll of one cent per hundred
pounds in favour of traffic carried to and from St. John or Portland as
against Halifax: Held (1), that under s. 3 of the Railway Act where
its provisions and of any Special Act were in conflict, the provisions of
TOLLS ASD TJLRLFFS. 767
the Special Art mast prevail. (2) That although the Board had juris-
diction to prevent unjust discrimination against persons or localities, the
pnrrriniimi of the Special Act, 62-63 Vice c. 5, prevailed and the appli-
Halifax and Halifax Board of Trade T. Grand Trunk By. Co.. 12 Can.
By. Cas. 55.
PETBOLETTf DlSCMMIXA TIOX COllitTl 1 iOX RAH. AXD WAT MlLtACE
DISTANCES REMISSION OF trsroiis DUTIES.
Application directing the respondents to cease unjust discrimination by
reducing the tolls from 66 cents to 56 per hundred pounds on shipments
of petroleum and its products, in C.L. lots all rail from Petrolia. Mot-
to Winnipeg. Man., to enable the applicants to complete successfully with
their competitors in the United States and at Sarnia. Out., who were
shippers of the same commodity to the same point by all rail and rail
and water, and on the ground that the tolls were unreasonable. The
chief object of the application was to reduce the tolls so as to place the
applicants in as advantageous position as they had been in competition
with the Kansas shippers of the same commodity . who had been practically
prohibited from coming into Canada until the remission of the customs
duties of 2| cents a gallon: Held il>. that a mere comparison of mile-
age distances without consideration of the peculiar circumstances affec-tin?
the traffic was not the final criterion of unjust discrimination. [British
Columbia Pacific Coast Cities T. Can. Pac. By. Co. (Vancouver Interior
Bates Case), 7 Can. By. Cas. 12-%. at pp. 142! 143: Lincoln Creamery v.
Union Pacific By. Co^. 5 LC.C.B. 156, at p. 16O: Dallas Freight Bureau v.
Hfcaimii, Kansas t Texas By. COL, 12 I.C.C.R. 427, followed.] (21 That
railways were not required by law and could not in justice be required to
equalize natural disadvantages such as location, cost of production, and the
like. [Black Mountain Coal Land Co. r. Southern By. Co- 15 I.C.C.R- 2$6.
followed. ] (3 That it was in the discretion of the railway wbethr it
should or should not meet the competition of markets and other railways.
[Montreal Produce Merchants* Assn. v. Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific
By. Cos.. 9 Can. By. Cas. 232. at p. 233: British Columbia Sugar Refining
Co. T. Can. Pac. By. Co.. 10 Can. By. Cas. 169. at pp. 171, 172: Lancashire
Patent Fuel Co. r. 'London t North Western By. Co.. 12 By. C. Tr. Cas. 79:
National Refining Co. v. Cleveland. Cincinnati. Chicago t St. Louis By. Co.. -
2O I.C.C.B. 649. followed.] i4* That it was in the discretion of the carriers,
whether they would meet the alleged keen competition resulting- from the
remission of the customs duties, but thi> competition did not create a pre-
sumption of unreasonableness in the tolls, which must be proved. [Chi-
cago Board of Trade v. Atlantic City By. Co. and New York Produce
Exchange T. New York Central t Hudson River Ry. Co.. 20 LC.C-R. -104.
at p. 518, followed.] i-lt That the through toll complained of was made
up of a basing toll on Fort William, and a toll which arose in the case
of both Canadian Pacific and Canadian Northern By. Cos. from the mut-
ual inter-relations of government agreements and competition arising there-