wsciMEAnox USCK rmEjmcE QTESTIOX OF FACT COM-
rKrmox BT WATEB AXB FOKCKX **" Conpimi^ox IJVEKOEAO
OK CAMTAL CH -\n6ff2v.
The Baihray Act does not forbid aD diseriminations and preferences.
bnt only forbids nnjnst discrimination or under pufciencg, and whe-
ther either one or the other exists in any particular ease is a Question
of fact to he decided. Discrimination between the tolls in Eastern and
Western Canada is not unjust, bnt is justified by effective water com-
petition, and by the competition of UJ- Railways throughout Eastern
Canada (The International and Toronto Board of Trade Bate Case).
Tolls cannot be based upon cousideratiou of the position of anyone of
three existing lines of Railway either completed or partially completed.
The question is what toll* are fair, irrespective of the
of any of suck companies. Bates cannot be nude on the
plus a fixed percentage to cover overhead or capital charges [BoQeam v.
Pacific ft Lake Erie By. Co^ 22 I.C.CJL WO. at p. 53. followed.] Where
the local passenger business is conducted at a loss, no reduction in the
rates is justified until the result is ascertained of the improvements in
railway grades and operating facilities, which the By. Co. is at present
making. [Pea Millers' ASM. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. By. Cos-.
(Pea Mfllers- Caaei. 3 Can. By. Cms. 433; Rideau Lumber Co. et ml. v.
Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. By. Cos, 8 Can. By. Gas. 339: Uontreal
Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. By. Cosw. 10 Can. By.
Cms. 319; Mount Royal Milling Co. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. By.
Cos, 11 Can. By. Cms. 347; Montreal Board of Trade v. Canadian Freight
Assau 14 Can. Ry. Cms. 347; International Paper Co. v. Grand Trunk.
Can. Pac. and Can. Northern By. Co- (Pulpwood Case). 15 Can. By.
Cms. Ill; Liverpool Corn Traders' Asa. v. Great Western By. CBL, I
By. ft Cm. Tr. Cms. 114; Pickering, et aL v. London ft Northwestern By.
776 TOLLS A.XD TARIFFS.
Co., 8 Ry. & Ca. Tr. Cas. 83; Castle Trawlers v. Great Western Ry.
Co., 13 Ry. & Ca. Tr. Cas. 145; Desel-Boettcher Co. v. Kansas City
Southern Ry. Co., 12 I.C.R. 222; Malkin v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Tan
Bark Rates Case), 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 183; Commercial Club v. Ilattiesburjr
v. Alabama & Great Southern Ry. Co., 16 I.C.C.R. 534. at p. 545; Elder,
Dempster Steamship Co. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ivy. Cos., 10.
Can. Ry. Cas. 334, referred to; Great Western Ry. Co. v. Sutton, L.R.
4 H. L. 226, at p. 237; Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto Uy. Co. v.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Stamford Junction Case), 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 2.">(5 at pp.
259, 260; Re Canadian Freight Assn. and Industrial Corporations, 3
Can. Ry. Cas. 427, at p. 428; Wegenast v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Brampton
Commutation Rate Case), 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 42; Toronto and Brampton v.
Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos., (Brampton Commutation Rate Case
(No. 2) ), 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 370; Almonte Knitting Co. v. Can. Pac. and
Michigan Central Ry. Cos. (Almonte Knitting Co.'s Case), 3 Can. Ry.
Cas. 441; Canadian Oil Cos. v. Grand Trunk, Can. Pac. and Can. Northern
Ry. Cos., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 350, at p. 351; Blind River Board of Trade v.
Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry., Northern Navigation and Dominion
Transportation Cos., 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 146; Montreal Produce Merchants
Assn. v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 232;
British Columbia Sugar Refining Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 10 Can. Ry.
Cas. 169, at p. 171; Lancashire Patent Fuel Co. v. London & North Western
Ry. Co., 12 Ry. & A. Tr. 79 ; Kerr v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 207 ;
Michigan Sugar Co. v. Chatham, Wallaceburg & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 11
Can. Ry. Cas. 353; Regina Board of Trade v. Can. Pac, and Can. Northern
Ry. Cos., (Regina Toll Case), 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 380, affirmed 45 Can.
S.C.R. 321, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 203; British Columbia Pacific Coast Cities v.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. ( Vancouver Interior Rates Case), 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 125,
Re Western Tolls (Western Freight Rates Case), 17 Can. Ry. Cas.
[Followed in Bowlby v. Halifax & S. W. Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 231;
West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. et al. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Can. Rr.
EXPRESS DELIVERY LIMITS ZONES G RADUATED SCALE.
Municipal boundaries may usually be taken as suitable limits for free
express delivery service, in villages towns and small cities, but not in
large cities where municipal boundaries are enlarged from time to time.
The Board established a central zone in Toronto with free pick up and
delivery service. Outside of the central zone, additional areas, as a toll
zone, were established in and about Toronto comprising any place within
half a mile from the nearest free zone limit, except the southern limit on
the water front. A graduated scale of charges, according to weight,
was fixed for delivery of parcels in the toll zone. After a year's operation
a report is to be made to the Board, upon which a revision of conditions
may be made if deemed necessary by the Board.
Toronto and Citizens Committee v. Express Traffic Assn., 22 Can. Ry.
TOLLS GROUP ARRANGEMENT DISTANCE MILEAGE BASIS.
A group toll arrangement endeavours to average distance and public
convenience. If each point of a group is to be singled out for special
treatment on a mileage basis, then the group disappears and the points
with the shortest mileage get an advantage in marketing, therefore the
TOLLS ASD TAKIPFS. 777
Board cam* tigktty interfere witfc a groapiug arraageuMBt simply oa a
atmulariou as to oae porUoa of tke arraagLaaLBt.
FmOenot Lonuber 4 Muagle COL v. Cam. Pae_ Rr_ Co, 17 Cam. RT. Cas.
Uwcsr BUM aim < HUM DreraurrxsG Rt>i>a.
It, it OB just diseriuuBatiaa to refine to *raat di liibaliag tolk to a
pout witkia tke Regtaa TOO* OB tke ground tkat tke njnoaAat bad
BO direct route to tke poiat IB aa*.uiua. bat tke Board eaaaot order a
refund of tke excess toD ekarsrd.
Lekakart T. Caa. Nortkera Rr. Gnu IT Caa. Rr. Ca& S3.
Discccnox I sjrr^T W<CKIM t^ AHOX Cmcrcxxnas.
A toll oktaiaiB^ OB oae ruhvar caaaot be dbiawd to be na justly di*-
cnauBatorr siaiplj becaase a toll OB aaotker vkiek pot iato rtfert
for naB|iililiii reaoBs is lover, it knap aitkiB tke dbtretioa of a carrier
vketker it *kall awet coatpetmoa or aot.
EdaMatoB. Cknxr Bar Saad Co. r. Graad Troak Pacific- Rr. COL. 17 Caa.
Rr. CasL 96.
'[FoDoved IB Re Paaaager Tolk. 20 Caa. Rr. Ca& 23: Grakaai Co.
r. CaaadiaB Frei^t \^a 23 Caa. RT. Caa. 355."]
ABLE Low HK H.
A toll is BBRasoaabie vkere it is too low just as muck as afccn. it is
too kiak. Toik ato*t be reasoaable. karia* regard to tke cJiiiei just a$
Buaek a* to tar traTeUap publir.
Barliagtoa Beack Coaniscioa et aL r. Haauhtoa Radial FJ^f. RT. Co_
24 Caa. RT. Gas. 39.
MsCXEMI^ ATK - DOTDBEVT ST^IKMS LOCAL AX DtrOKTXB
Tke differeace ia tofl
sarfly ovate aa aajust db
teati of raflwajsw Cpoa coB^ariap tke toll OB imported wood palp vhk
tke toll OB tke local product, aad takiag iato eoasideratiioB tke Bulra^*
iaToived aad tke terauaal ckarges oa tke imfartfd product, tke Board
foand tkat tke toll OB tke iatported produet was reasoaable.
HoweO Co. T. Graad Tmak. Caa. Pae. aad Caa. Xoftfcera RT.
17 Caa. RT. Ca&. 97.
MscxnnxATiox Mnricr TRAFFIC Su-ncmse
Whea it appears tkat. at a larpr anaiber of places ia Ontario,
Vr Bore or leal * cirruaHtaace$ aad tiuJiliuaii. ao extra
is aude for witckia traffr froat ^idiafs located betatea ctatioa^
it i* aajast di<riBuaatioB to auke aa extra Aarge of S3 per car for
in Mag, traCr of tke apfxlkaat. a brick Baker, trout a *idia 2* aules
dmaat froui a statioa. CL, wko is ia cuuipetitiuu witk brick uuker^ at
said statioa. [Ckrtie. Beaderaoa * Co. T. Grand Tmak RT. Cou 9 Caa.
RT. C**. SOS, follnwcd.]
Piloa T. Graad Tmak RT. COL. 1* Caa. RT. Cas. 433.
[Followed ia Hepwortk. rte_ Brick Co. T. Graad Trnak RT. COL, IS Caa.
RT. Ca&. 9.
USJVST oiscaiurt ATIOX Courcrmox.
It is aot OBJust disrriBUBatioB to ckar*e too low a toD to
778 TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
as compared with that to another market, when no competition exists be-
Guest Fish Co. v. Dominion Express Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARD
Upon a section of railway being completed and taken over by the
operating department the railway company should file and put in force
standard tariffs under s. 327 of the Railway Act, 1906. There is unjust
discrimination where an unreasonably long time elapses after completion
before lumber mileage tolls are put in force on such section.
Riverside Lumber Co. v. Can. Pac. lly. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 17.
[Followed in Re Edmonton Dunvegan & B. C. Ry. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas.
CHANGE OF DESTINATION "C.L."TRAFFIC IN TRANSIT.
Common carriers under the jurisdiction of the Board will be allowed
to make a uniform charge of $3 a car, as a reasonable toll for chang-
ing destination of C.L. traffic in transit.
Hyde et al. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 40.
UNREMUNERATIVE TOLLS EXCESSIVE OR UNFAIR.
The Board cannot order railway companies to put in an unremunerative
toll so low as to be unfairly out of line with tolls which are necessary
to be maintained in order to permit the continuance of satisfactory opera-
tion of railways, due regard being had to proper consideration of the
value of the commodities shipped and the services performed; it cannot
take into account matters of business policy and railway administration,
but can only inquire whether tolls are excessive or unfair.
Western Ontario Municipalities v. Grand Trunk, Michigan Central and
Pere Marquette Ry. Cos., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 329.
REDUCTION INCREASE FLAT BLANKET C.L. AVERAGE REVENUE.
The annual statistical returns made by railway companies shewing
the average revenue per ton per mile of all freight movements will not
justify a reduction of tolls by the Board. In every case the traffic moved
must be of sufficient volume and the hauls of sufficient length to insure
proper remuneration. Without prejudice to a pending application for
increased tolls a flat blanket C.L. toll of 50 cents per ton for any distance
up to and including 50 miles on gravel was voluntarily conceeded under
s. 341 of the Railway Act. 1906, by railway companies concerned to aid
municipalities in Western Ontario in prosecuting the "good roads" move-
Western Ontario Municipalities v. Grand Trunk, Michigan Central and
Pere Marquette Ry. Cos., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 329.
JOINT TARIFF JURISDICTION THROUGH TARIFF.
The Board has jurisdiction by virtue of the Railway Act, 1906, s. 26.
to make a declaratory order as against the carrier that rates exacted by
it between certain dates were illegal, although by reason of a subsequent
change in the authorized tariff no executive order was necessary nor Avas
any made by the Board. [Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk Ry. Cos., v.
British American and Canadian Oil Cos., 47 Can. S.C.R. 155, 14 Can. Ry.
Cas. 201, affirmed.] S. 321 of the Act applies to all tariffs whether stand-
ard, competitive or through tariffs.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Canadian Oil Cos., 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 411, 
A.C. 1022, 19 D.L.R. 64.
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS 779
DISCRIMINATION SAME CTBCCMSTANCES AXD coNnmoNS.
A claim of unjust discrimination, between the tolls charged for de-
livery of freight at different points, some of which have and others hare
not. farther railway communication before finally delivery is made, can-
not be supported where the in me circumstances and conditions do not and
Kelowna Board of Trade v. Canadian Pacific By. Cos 1-3 Can. Ry. Cas.
DISCRIMINATION MILLING is TRANSIT.
The Board, in the exercise of its jurisdiction to prevent unjust dis-
crimination has power to order that milling in transit be allowed to
flour mill owners applying therefor, upon proof that circumstances and
conditions with respect to the traffic from the applicants* mill are nnjb-
stantially similar to those of mills already enjoying such rate.
Ontario 4 Manitoba Flour Mills v. Can.* Pac. By. Cos 16 Can. By. Cas.
[Followed in Sudburv Brewing etc- Co. T. Can. Pa*. By. Co, 19 Gam. By.
REASONABLE COST OF FRODTCTION EQUALIZATION.
The Board has no right to attempt to equalize geographical, climatic
or economic conditions affecting cost of production, but t only con-
cerned with the reasonableness of the toll which the carrier itt seeking
to collect for the transportation of a given commodity.
Canadian China Clay Co. v. Grand Trunk. Can. Pac. 'and Can. Northern
By. Gos_ 18 Can. By.' Cas. 347.
[Followed in Roberts v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 350:
Tborold v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 143.]
C-L. UNIT or WEIGHT DISADVANTAGES or SHIFTERS EQCAUZATION
COST OF rRODCcnoN.
Railway companies are not obliged to equalize the disadvantages of
the shippers from the standpoint of the costs of production. The basis
of toll making so far as the unit of weight is concerned is 100 Ib*., and
the tolls vary with the weight. The Board win not require seasoned and
unseasoned wood to be carried at the same (XL. toll, irrespective of
weight, in order to equalize the disadvantage arising to shippers without
capital as compared with shippers having capital, to do so would create
unjust discriminatory conditions. [Canadian Portland Cement Co. v. Grand
Trunk and Bay of Qninte Ry. Cos, 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 211: Blangas Co. v.
Canadian Freight Assn.. 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 303. at p. 304: British Columbia
News Co. v. Express Traffic Asm.. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 176 at p. 178: Canadian
China Clay Co. T. Grand Trunk. Can. Pac. and Can. Northern Ry. Cos..
18 Can. Ry. Cas. 347. followed.]
Roberts v. Can. Pac. Ry. Cos 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 350.
[Followed in Tborold v. Great Trunk Ry. Gos 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 143.]
UNJTST DISCRIMINATION COMBINED TOLLS THBOCGH SHIPMENTS.
It is not unreasonable that the combined tolls on shipments from the
east contracted to Fort William, delivered and stored there, and subse-
quently shipped west should exceed those charged from the same eastern
shipping point to the same western destination, for the transshipping
of which the carrier must necessarily provide facilities at Fort William.
as in the hitter case there is but one transaction or contract, whilst in
the former there are two, therefore it is not unjust discrimination against
780 TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
Fort William to impose a wharfage toll on shipments to that point and
not to exact it on through shipments.
Fort William Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 401.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION STANDARD FREIGHT MILEAGE TARIFF GROUPS
DENSITY MAIN AND BRANCH LINES.
Difference in density of traffic as between main and branch lines does
not affect the application of a standard freight mileage tariff, therefore,
all points whether on a main or branch line, within the same mileage
group, should be given the same toll and it is unjust discrimination to
make a different toll against one point of the group.
Two Creek Grain Growers' Assn. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas.
POULTRY C.L. CLASSIFICATION FINISHED PRODUCT.
Live poultry in car loads is not entitled to the same classification and
the same tolls as live stock, and in making a freight toll reshipment of
the finished product is always taken into consideration. Poultry ship-
ments move under a lower classification in Canada than in the United
States, and third-class rating for live poultry in car loads is not unrea-
Warrington, et al. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 155.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION STORAGE TOLLS COMPETITION.
The practice of railway companies in granting lower forwarding stor-
age tolls than the local storage tolls is not unjust discrimination, because
tolls which otherwise of necessity might be charged on a parity may differ
one from the other as a result of competitive conditions.
Port Arthur and Fort William Boards of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.,
18 Can. Ry. Cas. 406.
MILLING -IN -TRANSIT PRIVILEGE BY-PRODUCT UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.
No instance can be found where a milling-in-transit privilege on the
by-product has been granted, apart altogether from the main product;
a brewing company, therefore, is not entitled to a milling-transit
privilege on the offal of malt grain carried by the respondent on its line
from Fort William to Sudbury, and there brewed in the applicant's brew-
ery. Shippers are not entitled to a milling-in-transit privilege as a mat-
ter of right, and its allowance in the public interest by carriers to ship-
pers in one section must be without unjust discrimination to shippers in
another section served by its line. | Koch v. Pennsylvania Ry. Co., 10
I.C.C.R. 675; Ontario & 'Manitoba Flour Mills v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 10
Can. Ry. Cas. 430, followed.]
Sudbury Brewing & Malting Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas.
BLANKET TOLLS COMPETITION LONG AND SHORT HAULS.
Dried fruit is carried eastward from the Pacific Coast under tariffs
giving a blanket toll of $1.10 from San Francisco to, e.g., St. Paul, Duluth,
Buffalo and New York. The same toll is applied to junction points ad-
jacent to the international boundary, and there is the same toll to Winni-
peg. The toll to Toronto is the same as to Buffalo, while Montreal has
the same toll in competition with New York. The toll to Fort William
is the toll to Duluth, plus the by-water toll from Duluth to Fort William,
and wharfage charges at Fort William. Competition is thus more effective
in favour of Toronto than Fort William. There being no movement of
dried fruit via Winnipeg and Fort William to Toronto the traffic moving
TOLLS AND TARLFFS. >
through raited State* points only therefore. there is BO rotation off
the long and short haul clause. & 313 5 of the Railway Act- 1906. aad
the *"*^g toll adjustment has act been nhi to work detrimentally
to Fort William.
Hathias T. Can. Pae., Can. Northern and Graad Truak Pacific Ry- Cot.
19 Caa. Ry. Caa. 410.
COST or SEBTKB CL
I pan the erideuee of cos* of sere-ice the Board fixed *1.75 per car a?
the proper toll for haadliag carload freight traffic betactn car bar?*- aad
laad team tracks or private idins at KeJowua, B-C, [KeJowna Board of
Trade T. Caa. Pae. RT. Co.. l-> Caa. RT. Cas. 441, referred to.] Complaint
against the toll of & per car made by the respondent for handling
cars from the dock at Kelowaa to and from the Tarkms warehouses.
Kelowaa Board of Trade T. Can. Pae. RT. COL, 19 Can. RT. Ca*. 414.
USJCST wscaXMXSATKW AXI> raarfxaccc. TRAFFIC VOTDCCST ACTCAI
A mere, statement as to difference of toDs is not
the existence of unjust diseriminatioa or nndne prefer
be eridence of the traffic moring and the effect thereon, and the discrimina-
tion most be one q eating actual detriment to complainants to make it
London Board of Trade Express Traffic Assn_ 19 Can. RT. Cas. 430.
L!TH3KrnO?t - DUTHtEVnATIO* OF WEICHTS.
A carrier is not justified in imposing tolls on the s>mr rommiNlilj dif-
fering nuniiling: to the use to which it is pat- and the same inhibition
attaches to a differentiation of iiiom weights based on the nse to which
the commodm- is pot. [Rfler T. Dominion Express Co- IT Can. RT. Ca_
Western Retail Lumbermen's Assn. T. Canadian Pacific et al. RT. Cos..
30 Can. Ry. Cas. 155.
[Followed in Hay and Still Mfg. Cos. T. Grand Trunk and Can. Pae.
Ry. Cos.. 21 Can. RT. Cas. 43.]
RE^JSOXABLC TOLL REWTCTIOX PKorrrs
The obligation of carriers is to charge a reasonable toll, and ther are
not called upon, through the reduction of the toll, to guarantee that a
shipper win arwaTs be able to carrr on business at a profit, nor are car-
riers under any obl^atioa to so adjust their minimum weight* as to off-
set any inherent diaadraufamm of a business. [Canadian Portland Cement
Co. T/Grand Trunk and Bay of Qninte Ry. Coa^ 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 309. at
p. 10: Canadian Oil Cos. T. Grand Trunk. Can. Pae. and Van. Northern
Ry. OD&. 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 350. at p. 356: British Columbia News Co. T.
Express Traffic A~n_ 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 176. at p. 177, followed.]
Western Retail Lumbermen's Asa. T. Can. Pae. et aL Ry. Cos, 30 Can.
Ry. Caa. 155.
[Followed in Hay aad Still Mfg. Cos. T. Grand Trunk and Can. Pae
Ry. Cos- 31 Can. Ry. Cas. 43: referred to in Dominion Mfllere Assn. et
aL T. Canadian Freight As*n_ 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 83: followed in Crushed
Stone etc. T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 132.]
HlGHEK BASIS FOB BBAXCH A3CD LATCBjU. LEXC FOISTS.
A slightly higher toll basis is justifiable from branch and lateral line
points than from adjacent main line points. [Almonte Knitting Co. T.
782 TOLLS ASD TARIFFS.
Can. Pac. and Michigan Central Ry. Cos. (Almonte Knitting Co. Case),
3 Can. Ry. Cas. 441; Malkin & Sons v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Tan Bark
Rates Case), 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 183; Oyler et al. v. Dominion Atlantic Ry.
Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 238, followed.]
Hunting-Merritt Lumber Co. v. Can. Pac. and British Columbia Elec.
Ry. Cos., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 181.
DISCRETION TOLLS UNREASONABLE TERMINAL COMPETITION BY WATER
If a carrier does not choose to meet water competition, the Board's whole
right to interfere with a toll is confined to a case where the toll charged
is unreasonable for the services rendered, therefore, where a carrier chang-
es the route of its car ferry it is not unjust discrimination for it to charge
a reasonable toll for the rail haul necessitated, instead of the former ter-
minal toll only. [Plain & Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 223;
Canadian Oil Cos. v. Grand Trunk, Can. Pac. and Can. Northern Ry. Cos.,
12 Can. Ry. Cas. 350; Blind River Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk, Can.
Pac. Rys., Northern Navigation and Dominion Transportation Cos., 15
Can. Ry. Cas. 146 at p. 156, followed.]
Nanaimo Board of Trade v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 224.
[Reheard and affirmed in 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 93.]
CONTRACT OBLIGATION OF CARRIER ADEQUACY OF CONSIDERATION.
The Board will not consider adequacy of consideration in a contract as
any justification for favoured treatment by a carrier of a shipper in
respect of tolls. [Crow's Nest Pass Coal Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 8 Can.
Ry. Cas. 33, at pp. 40, 41, followed.]
Lake Superior Paper Co. v. Algoma Central & Hudson Bay Ry. Co., 22
Can. Ry. Cas. 361.
REASONABLENESS TRAFFIC MOVEMENT MAIN AND BRANCH LINES.
In dealing with the reasonableness of tolls charged on a slight traffic
movement, the Board has recognized that under certain conditions tolls
to or from a point on a branch line may be higher than in the case of a
main line movement. [Almonte Knitting Co. v. Can. Pac. and Michigan
Central Ry. Cos. (Almonte Knitting Co. Case), 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 441;
Malkin & Sons v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Tan Bark Rates Case), 8 Can.
Ry. Cas. 183. followed.] A somewhat higher toll basis is justifiable, where,
on account of the urgency of the grain movement, leave is given before
completion to a branch line to engage in the carriage of traffic. In gen-
eral standard mileage tolls may properly be charged to the junction point
where the special mileage tolls become effective on the branch line.
Oyler et al. v. Dominion Atlantic Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 238.
[Followed in Hunting-Merritt Lumber Co. v. Can. Pac. and British Co-
lumbia Elec. Ry. Cos., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 181.]
PERIOD OF CONTINUANCE CAPITAL INVESTMENT COMMITMENTS.
While it is proper to take into consideration the period a toll has been
established, the investment of capital made in the belief that such toll
would continue and the further commitments made, there is no property
in a toll, mere continuance is only one factor, its general reasonableness
must be considered. [International Paper Co. v. Grand Trunk, Can. Pac.
and Can. Northern Ry. Cos. (Pulpwood Case), 15 Can. Ry. Cas. Ill,
Lake Superior Paper Co. v. Algoma Central & Hudson Bay Ry. Co., 22
Can. Ry. Cas. 361.
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS. 783
BLANKET TOLL DETELOMIEST OF TXAPTIC RESCXTJLST rnorrr OBUCATIOX
UXDCTLT 10V BASIS.
A banket toll pax in for Anliaamfai of tramc, witk but tittle atteatkm
to the resuhaat profit, don aot create aa obtisakm to eoatiaBe aa unduly
low toU basis, [latenataoaal Paper Co. r. Grand Trunk. Can. Pae. and
Can. Xorthera By. Co*. (Pulpwood Case*. 15 Can. Bj. Ca*. 111. followed. 1
Lake Saperior*Paper Co. T. Algoma Central t Hudson Bar By. Co, 2*
Caa. By. Caa. 361.
JCMSWCTIOX COST or rBODrorrox WDCHTS
MT1CIBACT OP BOLUXG STPOCK CLASSIFICATION CABBTTSTG
Tke Board ts aot tuacnaed with equalizing costs of production: Hs