tract was one of the elements bearing upon the decision of the question
of substantial similarity in circumstances the Board should have admitted
the evidence so tendered in regard to the agreement in consideration of
which the special rates of fares had been granted.
Montreal Park & Island Ry. Co. v. Montreal, 11 Can. Ry. Gas. 254, 43
Can. S.C.R. 256.
[Referred to in Can. Pac., etc. Ry. Cos. v. Regina Board of Trade, 13
Can. Ry. Cas. 203, 45 Can. S.C.R. 321.]
UNDERTAKING VALUE OPERATION CHANGE I,N SYSTEM COST INCREASE
CAPITAL CHARGES REVENUE.
The London & Port Stanley Ry., a steam railway recently operated by
electricity in a densely populated part of Ontario, may be taken as shew-
ing in the highest degree, the economies of electric railway operation.
To provide for capital charges on the value of the undertaking, and cost
of change in the system of operation, as well as for the large increases
in wages of employees and costs of supplies, an increased revenue is
necessary in order to operate the line as a commercial venture, without
loss to the owners or depreciation in the property. Accordingly the
passenger toll of 2J cents per mile was increased by 15 per cent, and
the toll on coal by 15 cents per ton, as in the case of steam railways.
The Board will extend similar relief to any other electric line whose
operation and financial condition require it. [Re Eastern Tolls (East-
ern Toll Case ) , 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 4 ; Re Increase in Passenger and Freight
Tolls (Increase in Rates Case), 22 Can. Ry. Cas: 49, followed.]
Re London & Port Stanley Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 160.
H. Telegraph Tolls.
FILING TARIFFS UNJUST DISCRIMINATION PRESS DESPATCHES.
Application by the Western Associated Press for reduction of rates
charged by the respondents for press despatches, alleging an unjust dis-
crimination in favour of the respondents' customers. The rates charged
from points in Eastern Canada to respondents' customers were one cent
per word for day service and one-half cent per word for night service,
subject to a rule that those rates are "special for publication at point
addressed in one newspaper only." The rates charged to the applicants for
the same service were one and one-half cents for day and three-quarters
of a cent for night despatches: Held (1), that the rate made for one
class, a single newspaper, should not be arbitrarily applied to another
class, an association of newspapers; the different rates not being in them-
selves unreasonably high. (2) That telegraph companies are brought un.
der the jurisdiction of the Board by 7-8 Edw. VII. c. 61, Part 1, and their
. tariffs must be approved by it under s. 314 (5) of the Railway Act, 1906.
(3) That these tariffs must be so framed as not to work unjust dis-
crimination against the applicants, or any other person or association,
engaged in like work. (4) That s. 315 would have no application whatever,
unless the traffic (press despatches) in question passed over the same
portion of the telegraph line from start to finish" (5) That under s.
9 of 7-8 Edw. VII. c. 61, the definition of "toll" or "rate" has equal ap-
plication to railway, telegraph and telephone companies.
Western Associated Press v. Can. Pac. Ry. and Great North western
Telegraph Cos., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 482.
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS.
DISCRIMINATION "PRESS SPECIALS."
The Board held that an increase from 25 to 50 cents per 100 words in
telegraph tolls for -press specials" in the Maritime Provinces, while the
former rate of 5 cents was continued in Ontario and Quebec was prima
facie an unjust discrimination against the Maritime Provinces and in the
absence of evidence of special circumstances justifying the difference in
rate ordered the former rate to be restored.
Canadian Press v. Great Northwestern, etc.. Telegraph Cos.. 14 Can.
Ry. Cas. 151.
UNREMrNERATlTE BCSISESS PRESS SERYICE-
Tbe - Board refused to order telegraph companies to provide special
mils for press service similar to tolls provided by another telegraph eom-
lany under special agreement when it appeared that the objecting com-
janie> had not sought the press business or provided the necessary fa-
cilities for it, and that it would be unremunerative.
Canadian Press v. Great Northwestern, etc. Telegraph Cos.. 14 Can.
By. Cas. 151.
REASONABLE SERVICE SIMILAR COMPARISONS INFORMATIVE NOT OON-
CLrSIVE.
In determining what are reasonable tolls for telegraph messages in
Canada, the tolls charged for similar services in the United States may
be taken into consideration, but these comparisons are merely informa-
tive, not conclusive. [Canadian Oil Cos. v. Grand Trunk etc. Ry. Cos..
12 Can. Ry. Cas. 355: Manitoba Dairymen's Assn. v. Dominion and Cana-
dian Northern Express Cos.. 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 142. followed.]
Re Telegraph Tolls, 20 Can. Ry. Cas/1.
STATTTORY OBLIGATION UNJCST DISCRIMINATION ZONES ANOMALT.
The Great Northwestern Telegraph Co. is under statutory obligation
(45 Viet. c. 93, & 14), not to exceed a toll of twenty-five cents for ten
words, and one cent for each, additional word, on all messages between
points in Ontario. Quebec, Nova Scotia aand New Brunswick. The con-
tinuance, under statutory obligation, of a twenty-five cent telegraph toll
within Ontario. Quebec. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, while higher
tolls are charged in other zones, is no evidence of undue discrimination or
undue preference: nor does the anomaly created, by these uniform low
tolls within a very large zone, justify the Board in establishing the same
tolls, or equally large zones, elsewhere.
Re Telegraph Tolls, 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
UNJVST DISCRIMINATION TEST is INJI-RT TO ixDmorAL OR LOCAUTT.
The ultimate test of discrimination is to be found, not in a difference
of tolls, but in the question whether as a result of this difference injury
is caused to an individual or a locality. [Michigan Sugar Co. v. Chatham.
Wallaceburg 4 Lake Erie Ry. COL, 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 353: Wegenast v.
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. c Brampton Conuintation Rates Case*. 8 Can. Ry.
Cas, 42. affirmed; Toronto and Brampton v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pac.
R. Cos. i Brampton Commutation Rates Case, No. 2), 11 Can. Ry. Cas
370, followed.]
Re Telegraph Tolls. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
DISTANCE BASIS FREIGHT POLE AND WIRE ITNES MILEAGE ZONES.
The element of distances is a much less im-"iant factor in fixing
telegraph tolls than in fixing tolls for freight, though the cost of the
828 TOLLS AX1) TARIFFS.
pole line mileage and wire line mileage has some influence. In Rail-
way transportation, increase of distance means increase of hauling cost,
whereas telegraph transmission is practically instantaneous, the increase
of plant investment is localized and the cost factor does not vary (so far
as actual transmission is concerned ) , with the movement of the particu-
lar message. Therefore freight tolls generally speaking may properly be
made on a distance basis (the zone system being adopted only under
special circumstances as a result of competition of markets or water com-
petition) ; but it is more convenient and is in fact a matter of practical
necessity to adopt a zone system in fixing telegraph tolls. [Western On-
tario Municipalities v. Grand Trunk, Michigan Central & Pere Marquette
Ry. Cos., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 329. at pp. 332, 334, referred to.] Though
distance is not so directly nor so largely a factor in the cost of telegraph
service as of railway transportation it is by no means entirely negligible;
it should be considered in fixing zone areas and tolls should be based on
distance to a greater extent than they have been in the past.
Re Telegraph Tolls, 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
[Followed in Town of the Pas v. G.N.W. Telegraph Co., 22 Can. Ry.
Cas. 402.]
THROUGH TOLLS REASONABLENESS OF TOLLS CHARGED.
The division of a through toll as between companies is primarily an
inter-company matter and does not directly concern the public; provided
the total toll is reasonable. The value of a telegraph service, as evidenced
by the extent to which it receives public patronage, is not a safe criterion
of the reasonableness of the tolls charged for it, though the public may
be willing to pay these tolls rather than be deprived of it. In a general
enquiry into the tariff of tolls of telegraph companies the Board took
into consideration, so far as available, the value of the plant employed,
the cost of construction or reproduction and equipment of the several
telegraph lines, the right-of-way and the facilities afforded them by rail-
way companies, the proportion of railway business to commercial business
over lines owned or operated by railway companies, the relations gen-
erally between telegraph companies and railway companies, the dis-
tances covered, the volume of business done in the past, the prospects for
future business, the probability of increased competition, the cost of
operation and the gross and net returns and promulgated an amended
table of reasonable maximum tolls upon the zone system based on a trans-
continental toll of $1. [British Columbia News Co. v. Express Traffic
Assn., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 176, at p. 177, referred to.]
Re Telegraph Tolls, 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
[Followed in The Pas v. G.X.W. Telegraph Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 402.]
GENERAL SCHEME DEVELOPMENT STAGE ISOLATION PARTICULAR SECTION.
The Board lias recognized that while in general telegraph tolls must be
looked at from the standpoint of a general scheme, yet where business is
in a development stage the imitation of the telegraph line and the particu-
lar facts of the particular section should be considered. [Re Telegraph
Tolls, 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 1, at pp. 18, 21, 31, 58, 59. followed.]
The Pas v. G.X.W. Telegraph Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 402.
I. Telephone Tolls.
BUSINESS TOLL RESIDENTIAL TOLL.
Complaint that a toll of $4"> for the rental of a telephone in a nurses
residence, used also as her office, was excessive and not justified by the
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS. -
amount of user. The complainant used the telephone at her residence for
the purposes of her busrnfg* or profession as a nurse and was i haiajul
the higher or fr-ty*"*** toll rather than the lower or residential tolL It
nptnrtd that her business use of the telephone averaged about once a
week: Held (1), that the complainant was not in the same position as
a subscriber who has a telephone at his place of business and another a:
bi residence, and the complaint must be dismissed- <2 That a tele-
phone in the residence of a business or professional man who has no office
telephone is properly charged the business tolL irrespective of the amount
tmf mUn^r
Bayly T. Bell Telephone Co_ 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 190.
[Followed in Uedieo-Chirurgieal Society v. Bell Telephone COL. 1C Can.
Ry. Cas. 267: Newman v. Bell Telephone COL, 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 271.]
An application under sabs. 5ofs.4of748 Edw. VTL e. 61. Railway
Act amendment, directing the respondent to provide long distance con-
nection with the systems of the applicants: Held (II, that it is the duty
of the Board in granting the application to protect invested capital of the
respondent. (2 That the connection desired should be provided by the
mpiunhul at the expense of the applicants for one year. (3| That for
outbound traffic |Le_ calls originating on local lines- the applicant shall
paj the respondent fifteen cents for each rang distance call in addition to
the regular rang distance tariff of the respondent, and that there shall
he no charge upon the inbound traffic (Le_, the calls originating upon the
respondent's system*.
Rural Teh-phone Cos. v. Bell Telephone Co- 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 319.
BASIS Ft* FTSXSG.
Valuable as cost of replacement may be under certain conditions as a
basis of toll regulation, nevertheless, the company being in an admittedly
satisfactory position financially, it would be unnecessary for it. in order to
justify an increase of tolls in specified territory, to shew that the exchanges
operating in the territory affected had not contributed their proper pro-
portion to the general revenues and reserves of the company and failing
juch proof application for leave to increase was refused. The burden
being on the party attacking the existing toD to make out an affirmative
ease, an attack upon the reasonableness per se of existing tolls failed where
it appeared that the return earned under them was apparently about
8L38 per cent on the book value of the plant. Preparation for future
needs and readiness to serve are requisites of proper ~"~ ** of a
public utility corporation, and advantageous to present as well as to
prospective u^ers of the service, and it is proper to consider these elements
in fixing tolls, when determining whether the value of idle plant shall
be included in the amount on which fair return should be allowed. With
regard to depreciation, the percentage or composite life basis as com-
pared with the setting aside of an arbitrary annual amount per instru-
ment has both the sanction of business experience and the approval of
regulative tribunals, and either the straight line or the iVrpr fund
method may be used. A scientific basis for distribution of long distance
mtnue as lutngtu the lines originating or terminating the message with-
in a city, and the lines transmitting it beyond, is at present unattainable.
and to the extent of the undefined costs outside the city, it is unfair in
fixing tolls to attribute to city territory as revenue the total long distance
of the company originated and terminated in the city regardless
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS.
of such additional costs. There is no necessary connection between free
exchange limits and civic limits; when untrammelled by arrangements
already made by the company it is a question of distance and of par-
ticular facts; and where the company had extended its flat toll applicable
within the city, to certain territory outside, it was in the absence of cir-
cumstances to justify the discrimination ordered to extend the same toll
to all territory within an equal distance from its main exchange. The
existence of excess mileage does not in itself constitute unjust discrimi-
nation, but where the conditions of telephone transmission up to the limit
of the free area of an exchange are the same, it is unjust discrimination
to treat the man living beyond this area and within the exchange territory
in a different manner, from the man living inside this area; that is to
say, he should have the same free mileage allowed, and excess mileage
should be charged only on the portion of the subscriber's line located be-
yond the boundary of the free mileage /cone. [Winnipeg Jobbers' & Ship-
pers' Assn. v. Can. Pac., Can. Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Cos.,
8 Can. Ry. Cas. 175, at p. 182. followed.] It is not the function of the
Board to order that specified apparatus should be continued or discontin-
ued unless the efficiency of the service is involved.
Montreal v. Bell Telephone Co., 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 118.
[Followed in Newman v. Bell Telephone Co., 17 Cau. Ry. Cas. 271.]
ANNEXATION EXCHANGE LIMITS EXTRA MILEAGE.
Upon the annexation of the district of North Toronto on 1st January,
1913, to the city, application was made to have the tariff of telephone tolls
in force within the Toronto Exchange limits (i.e., the limits of the city
on 1st January, 1911 ) extended to the annexed territory. Subscribers out-
side said limits were charged extra mileage of $5.00 per quarter mile or
fraction thereof, computed from a point three-quarters of a mile distant
from the nearest exchange. The nearest exchange to North Toronto is
the North Exchange in the city, one and three-quarter miles south of the
southern boundary of North Toronto, with which telephones in North
Toronto continued to be connected. The circumstances and conditions af-
fecting the telephone service in North Toronto were found to be dissimi-
lar from those existing within the Toronto Exchange limits, and the ap-
plication was refused except as to the computation of extra mileage, which
was changed to commence at what was the limits of the city on 1st Jan-
uary, 1911, instead of at a point three-quarters of a mile from the North
Exchange of the city, following the Montreal Telephone Tolls Case, 15 Can.
Ry. Cas. 118.
Toronto v. Bell Telephone Co. (North Toronto Telephone Tolls Case),
15 Can. Ry. Cas. 142.
[Rebeard and affirmed in 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 203.]
BUSINESS TELEPHONE SPECIAL TOLL.
A telephone company is justified in charging a business toll for a
telephone used by a doctor at his residence. The Board approved the dis-
continuance of a special toll intermediate between the residence and busi-
ness toll subject to the completion of existing contracts. [Bayly v. Bell
Telephone Co., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 190, followed.]
Medico-Chirurgical Society of Montreal v. Bell Telephone Co., 16 Can.
Ry. Cas. 267.
SERVICE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS NEW EXCHANGE VOLUME OF
BUSINESS.
Where it appeared that certain changes with regard to the territory
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS. S31
had takes place since the pw-vrioms hearing iurfiot an
in populatkui front ftJM to 7-5KW. an increase n the number of
front :73 to 439. the i iilrtlMnwnl of *peyiial delivwie* by the
sad an increase in the umaher of pfce of business, the Baud
found that the evidence was not gafcieat to warrant it in coauag to aay
other f^mri^^- than thai previous!?- reached that to he entitled to the
city toll, the cirmntatances and eiaaHrioan of the ttlephnur busiaew in
the territory in question should be such as to warrant the establi^haMut
of a new exchange, and that the telephone braaests in the territory in
aestioa was not yen sulfieieuthr lar*e to warrant the Board in ordering
this to he done. fToroato v. Befl Telephone Co. Xorth Toronto Til.phonr
TD One), 13 Can. Ry. C*?. 141. reheard and afinned.]
Toronto r. Ben Telephone Co. fXorth Toronto Telephone Toll *, 17
Can. KT. Ca& 3L
Edw. VH. e. til. & 4 f51, fixed the tem of
whkh an independent total teh-phone camp**y shwaM
hare haw to establish a caanectian with the iiifintdinl for loo* dis-
tance seniee as foDows; An annnal <ehare for {11 rnnmpantes harin*
at exceeding 5* xnhseribers. $1W; f2| cxnapanies harin^ exceedin* i5*
nfcneriheni and not exceeding CM cnhfieribers, *SfiW: 3 eopanies hav-
ing exceeding CM antnaihen, f3M; and a rpeeiil charge of ten cente eaeh
mmj in addition to the Ion* distance charge of the respondent, of whkh
charge the latter shall reeeiie 7 cents and the applicant 3 cents.
Yndtpradcnt Telephone Co. T. Ben Telephone Co. H Telephone- Conneeticnts
Guei. 17 Can. Br. Cas. 2S&.
[ACnned in IngersoU Telephone Co. T. BeO Telephone Co_ 33 Can. E>
Cas. 133. 31 DXuR. 49.]
BASE TOLL LxrjoL&SE PBVAKT TOLL ABC* PJUETT IJ^TK EXCESS ITJLE-
Where it has been the enstoni to attow parrr fine CBbseribers. so atr-
nated that their ntnst paj excess nuOeage tolk. a rednction of one-fifth on
the base ton. a diseontinnance of this redaction is not justified on the
ground that a change of toBs in the prinurj toll area ordered br the
Beard lendeted obsolete parrr line service within that area. On 'order
of the Board extending the prunarr toll area is not snCewn jnttfieation
for an increase in mileage tolls to subscribers situated benud that am.
"Montreal T. Btfl Telephone Co. ((Montreal Telephone ToU'Casel, 15 Can.
Rr. Cas. US. followed.]
Xewuum T. Bell Telephone Co, 1C Can. Rr. Ca*. 271.
[FoDawed in Xotre Damt dcs Anges T. Befl Telephone OIL, 17 Can. Rr.
Cas. *77.]
E ^Anonrr or rsxx.
A trhrhnue in the house of a relt*ious coannnirr is properhr changed
the business tolL [Xewann T. BrO Telephone Co^ 1C Can. Rr.'Cuc. 571.
followed.]
Xotre nuae oes.Aages T. Bell Telephaue Cu 17 Can. Rr. Cas. 77.
Br*TVESS TOLL RESIBEXCK.
Under the provisions of s, 315 of the Raflwar Aet, 190C, a dergjauw is
entitled to be charged the residence toll and not the business toU for the
oe of the telephone installed in his residence.
IVsrothe* T. Ben Telephone Ga, IS Can. Rr. Cas. 3*L
832 TOLLS AND TARIFFS.
BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL TOLL AMOUNT OF USER.
A telephone in the residence of a market gardener and fruit raiser,
who has no office telephone, is properly charged the business toll irrespec-
tive of the amount of user. [Bayly v. Bell Telephone Co., 11 Can. Ry.
las. 190, followed.]
Newman v. Bell Telephone Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 271.
[Followed in Notre Dame des Anges v. Bell Telephone Co., 17 Can. Ry.
Cas. 277.]
OTHER LINE MUTUALITY AGREEMENT.
Under an agreement between telephone systems imposing "another line"
charge in addition to the long distance tolls of the Bell Co. "each party
to receive its own charge and the party on whose line the call originates
shall collect and be responsible for such charge, provided, however, that
the Bell Co. shall not be obliged to collect and be responsible for the pro-
prietor's charge if the proprietor fails to collect a like charge on messages
originating on the proprietor's system," the obligation in respect of the
''other line" charge is mutual, that is to say, if the Bell Co. is asked
to collect the charge of the applicant company in respect of the message
originating on the Bell Co's. line the applicant company must similarly
collect in respect of a message originating on its own line and this obli-
gation attaches to all calls.
Ernesttown Rural Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 18 Can. Ry.
Cas. 325.
[Followed in Joliette Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 21 Can. Ry.
Cas. 443.]
JURISDICTION TOLLS CONNECTIONS LONG DISTANCE LOCAL.
The Board has jurisdiction to order connection and fix tolls for long
distance business, but it has none in the case of connection for local busi-
ness. [Bell Telephone Co. v. Falkirk Telephone Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 256,
followed.] In the case of connecting telephone companies it is the duty
of both companies to collect the full amount for long distance tolls and the
company should not absorb its share of the through long distance toll.
[Ernesttown Rural Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas.
325, followed.]
Joliette Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 443.
JUKISDICTION ADDITIONAL TOLLS USE OF LONG DISTANCE CONNECTION-
COMPETITION.
The Board has power under the Railway Act, 1906, and amendments,
to authorize an additional toll to the established tolls of a telephone com-
pany for the use of its long distance lines; to order compensation for loss
in local exchange business occasioned by giving independent companies
long distance connection; to authorize payment of a special toll by com-
peting companies obtaining long distance connection, though not subject-
ing noncompeting companies to a like toll. [Independent Telephone Co. v.
Bell Telephone Co., 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 266, affirmed.]
Ingersoll Telephone Co. v. Bell Telephone Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 135 53
Can. S.C.R. 583, 31 D.L.R. 49.
MAXIMUM TOLLS SEMI-PUBLIC TELEPHONES AGREEMENT.
An agreement between a municipality and a telephone company fixing
the maximum tolls to be charged for a residence or business telephone does
not prevent the telephone company, subject to the provisions of the Rail-
way Act, from filing its tariff of tolls with the Board covering the tolls
TOLLS AXD TARIFFS. 833
to be charged for other forms of telephone service, such as semi-public, and
giving such service to the publie.
Mace and Ottawa v. Bell Telephone Co., 23 Can. By. Gas. 137.
BASE AREA Corx-aox OK ATTEXDED UXJCST
TK>X.
It is unjust discrimination for a public utility company, Those tolls
should be equalized according to the services rendered, to charge double
the toll at the attended station for local calls compared with the toll at
the coin-box booth, both being public telephones. The Board ordered the
respondent to equalize its tolls for local calls by filing a toll for local
messages on a "two-number basis'* from public telephones inside the base
toll area at five cents, and outside thereof at ten cents.
Lemienx v. Bell Telephone Co.. 23 Can. By. Cas. 141.
J. Rebates and Refunds.
See also Branch Lines.
BATES ox OOXCRETE BLOCKS STAXDARD TARIFFS.
The Dominion Concrete Co. complained to the Board that there was an
unjust discrimination in favour of bricks as against concrete blocks in
the freight rates charged. After these rates had been satisfactorily ad-
justed and those on concrete blocks reduced the company applied to the
Board for a refund of the difference between the higher and the reduced
rate: Held, that under sa, 323, 327. 401 of the Bailway Act. 1906. the
Board has no power to make a retroactive alteration in a tariff and grant