gates and watchmen: Held, that the applicant must reimburse the re-
spondent for the cost of construction, maintenance and protection of the
crossing, receiving from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund, 20 per cent of
the cost of the protection works.
St. Pierre v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
[See Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Toronto, 32 O.R. 120, 1 Can. Ry. Cas. 82, 92;
Weston v. Can. Pac. and Grand Trunk Ry. Cos., 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 79;
followed in Montreal v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 50; Lachine
v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 385 ; London v. Grand Trunk Ry.
Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 242; Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hamilton, 22 Can. Ry.
Cas. 442.]
BRANCH LINE SPUR CROSSING EXPENSE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Application under s. 176 of the Railway Act, 1906, for leave to expro-
HIGHWAY CROSSINGS. ^ 7
priate a portion of a triangular piece of land for the purpose of construct-
ing a spur across it from the applicant's brawn line on L. street, in tire
city of Saskatoon- The aid land had been acquired by the respondent from
the former oner, one B. the respondent had been authorized by order oi
Board to construct certain >|ar* aero the land in question when the ap-
plicant's spur was constructed with the exception of the section crossing the
portion of the land aforesaid. The order authorizing construction of the
branch line and the said spur of the applicant was made before the rtrpoud
cat had acquired the said land: Held 111, that the applicant should be
authorized to take so much of the said land as would be necessary for the
construction of its spur. (2 < That if a dispute should arise as to the area
af4,jfjjij to be so taken, the matter should be determined by an engineer of
the Board. (3i The expense of making the necessary railway crossings on
the land should be borne jointly by the applicant and respondent. [Can.
Northern Ry. Co. T. Can. Pae. Ry. Co. (Kai*er Crossing Case*. 7 Can. Ry.
Cas. 297: Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. T. CJP.R. (Nokomis Crossing Case-.
7 Can. Ry. Cas. 299. distinguished.)
Qir Appelle, LL. * Sask. Ry., etc.. Cos. T. Can. Pae. Ry. Co^ 13 Can. Ry.
Cas. 131.
HlCHWAT CBOSSED BT BATLWAT POTfXTlOX COS
Application to determine the character of the protection at a crossing
of a highway by a railway and to apportion the cost thereof. The railway
of the first respondent crosses a public highway leading to an amusement
park, known as Grimsby Beach, with a double track and the other respond-
ent operates an electric railway on the east side of the highway ending a
short distance south of the tracks of the first respondent: Held (1), that
one watchman should be employed from May 1 to October 1, for the first
year to see if that would afford sufficient protection, (2i That the town-
dun should bear 15 per cent and the first respondent the remaining 85 per
cent of the cost and that the second respondent should bear no portion of
the cost of protection. Commissioner McLean: That the second respond-
ent contributed to the danger and should pay half of 85 per cent of the cost
of protection.
Grimsby Beach Amusement Co. T. Grand Trunk and Hamilton, etc,, Ry.
Cos.. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 138.
GATES Cossntrcnox MAIXTEXANCE COST
Application directing the respondent to construct, maintain and operate
gates at two highway crossings within 150 feet of one another: Held (1 1.
that the respondent should erect, maintain and operate the gates and he re-
imbursed to the extent of 20 per cent out of the Railway Grade Crossing
Fund for the cost of construction of each pair of gates, the applicant to
contribute 30 per cent towards the cost of their operation and maintenance.
(2 1 That the rule is that the smaller rural municipalities should contribute
on a basis of 15 per cent, but in this case the highways being so dose and
the municipality being unwilling to close either on account of bind damage*
and inconvenience it should pay a larger proportion.
Taiistoefc T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 442.
STEAM RAILWAY ASD ELECTBIC STBEET BATLWAY
Arpomox MEXT OF COST.
Upon an application by a municipality for an order to carry four streets
over the intersecting tracks of a steam railway company, two of the-*
streets being occupied by the tracks of an electric street railway, the
Board decided that the cost be apportioned as follows: For the street*
4G8 HIGHWAY CROSSINGS.
not occupied by the electric railway, the steam railway to contribute 75
per cent, and the municipality 25 per cent of the cost; for the streets oc-
cupied by the electric railway, the steam railway to contribute 60 per
cent, the electric railway 20 per cent, and the municipality 20 per cent
of the cost, with contributions in three cases from the Railway Grade
Crossing Fund of 20 per cent up to $5,000, such cost to include the cost of
depressing the tracks of the steam railway, and damages to its lands ex-
clusive of the right-of-way.
Vancouver v. Great Northern and British Columbia Elec. Ry. Cos., 14
Can. Ry. Cas. 333.
STREET RAILWAY PROTECTION APPORTIONMENT OF COST.
The Board granted an application by a municipality for a crossing on
the highway of a steam railway by its electric street railway to save a
detour of three thousand feet on condition that the applicant pay for its
own construction, its own rails, and other work and the diamonds, but the
cost of protection, that is, the installation of the interlocking plant, its
maintenance and operation, to be borne equally by the applicant and re-
spondent. The municipality was not estopped, and had the right to make
the application under the changed conditions, irrespective of any action
previously taken by the Board. The rights of municipalities to apply
to the Board to open level crossings, in the public interest, are higher
and should more readily be given effect to than applications of railway com-
panies to cross highways on the level.
St. Thomas v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 339.
LIGHTING RAILWAY AND TRAFFIC BRIDGE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC TOLLS.
The Board will exercise jurisdiction to require a railway company to
provide proper lighting for and approaches to a railway bridge upon
which provision is made for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, for the use of
which bridge tolls are charged, and toward whose construction assistance
was given under the Dominion Subsidy Act (1900), 63-64 Viet. c. 8.
Mahon v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 268.
SEPARATION OP GRADES PUBLIC INTEREST LEVEL CROSSINGS DIVERSION.
After closing and diverting a highway crossing over two railways on
the level it is in the public interest that the Board should not order an-
other highway to be opened across these railways for the convenience of a
few landowners who are cut off from access to the diverted highway except
by going some distance east to where the diverted road joins the old road
by an overhead bridge.
Bush et al. v. Grand Trunk and Campbellford, Lake Ontario & Western
Ry. Cos., Bush Road Crossing Case, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 437.
OPENING OF HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
The Board will not invoke its compulsory powers to compel a railway
company to supply a right-of-way across its own lands for a municipal
highway to be used for highway purposes quite irrespective of railway
purposes.
Courtney v. Esquimalt Nanaimo Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Ca.*. 384.
OPENING OF HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY APPORTIONMENT OF COST.
The opening of a highway across the lands taken for right-of-way of a
railway company is a new public right over it. and the cost of its con-
struction and maintenance should be borne by the applicant municipality.
Mont Laurier v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 387.
HIGHWAY CROSSINGS. 469
AlTOtTOOXMEXT OF COST ExJtSSE
Where the Baud grants permission to the applicant to open up a high-
way across the right-of-way of the respondent . the uniform practice is to
place the whole cost of construction and maintenance upon the applicant.
hot the aider may provide, if the applicant so desires, that the work of
construction BUT be done by the respondent, the expense thereof being
reimbursed by the applicant.* [Weston T. Grand Trunk and Can. Pae, Ry.
Cos, (Deniaon Avenue Crossing Case), 7 Can. By. Gas, 71; SL Pierre T.
Grand Trunk By. Co. (Simplex Avenue Crossing Case), 13 Can. By. Cas. 1;
Bridgeburg T. Grand Trunk and Michigan, Central By. Cos.. 14 Can. By.
Cas. 10; Montreal v. Can. Pae. By. COL, 18 Can. By. Cas. 50; Laehine v.
Grand Trunk By. Co, 18 Can. By. Ca*. 383, followed.]
London T. Grand Trunk By. Co. (AcUand Arcane Crossing Case.), 20
Cam. By. Cas. 242.
ROAD AUJOWAXOE: SCXIOK AS JTXIOB CLE COSTS AjTOrnOXMEST
In applying the senior and junior rule betneen railway companies, con-
struction of the crossing and not approval of location gives priority, but
betneen municipalities and railway companies that principle cannot be ap-
plied, when it is sought to cross a railway by a highway where a road al-
lowance previously iff air 1 then no matter how long the railway may have
been constructed it is considered to be junior, and the railway njsapnnj
AwiH install and maintain the necessary crossing. [Can. Northern By.
Co. T. Can. Pae. By. Co. (Kaiser Crossing "Case j , 7 Can. By. Cas. 297; Can.
Northern By. Co. v. Can. Pae. By. Co^ 11 Can. By. Cas. 432. followed.)
Where there is no road allowance and the municipality desires to use the
BUM! of the railway company upon which to construct a highway, the en-
tire costs of the highway improvements will be borne by the applicant.
[Gloucester T. Canada Atlantic By. COL, 3 O-LJt 85. 1 Can. By. Cas. 327,
followed.]
Sanman T. Can. Northern By. Co. (Kylemore Crossing Case), 20 Can.
By. Gas. 246.
DEMCATIOX OF CBOSSCCG AWOWTIOTMEVT OF COST COXSTKCCTKK*
The Board has decided on a number of occasions, that to fix a railway
company with a portion of the cost of constructing and protecting a high-
way crossing, there must be some act by the railway company dedicating
the crossing to the public, but. where the crossing is a way of communica-
tion under the Railway Act. the municipality will be assisted to the extent
of 20 per cent from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund in bearing the whole
cost of constructing and protecting a proper crossing. [Weston v. Grand
Trunk and Can Pae. By. Cos.. 7 Can. By. Cas. 79-. St. Pierre T. Grand
Trunk Bv. Co. (Simplex Avenue Crossing Case). 13 Can. By. Cas. 1. fol-
lowed.]
Montreal v. Can. Pae. By. COL. 18 Can. Fy. Ca*. .10.
[Followed in Laehine v. Grand Trunk By. COL. 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 385;
London v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 242; Grand Trunk Ry
Co. T. Hamilton, 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 442.]
DBMCATIOX or WAT APTOBTIOXME^T OF COSTS GRADES SEPAMATIOX
SCKWAT.
The wen-defined policy of the Board in cases where there is no evidence
of any dedication of a way of communication to the public by a railway
company across its tracks, is that the entire expense of grade separation
470 HIGHWAY CROSSINGS.
necessary to carry the subway under the existing tracks of a railway com-
pany should be borne by the applicant municipality. [Weston v. Grand
Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos. (Denison Avenue Crossing Case), 7 Can. Ry.
('as. 70; Town of St. Pierre v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Simplex Avenue
Crossing Case), 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 1; Montreal v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can.
Ry. Cas. 50, followed.]
Lachine v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 385.
[Followed in London v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 242.]
SENIOR AND JUNIOR RULE COSTS.
The senior and junior rule which is sometimes applied by the Board when
determining who should pay the cost of the crossing of one railway over
smother, should not be applied where a highway is crossed by a railway, as
the municipality being the owner of the street and now being the owner of
the street railway, should not be considered junior to the steam railway
company and the costs of protecting the crossing should be apportioned
equally between them.
Braiitford v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 166.
KVIDENCE OF DEDICATION EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY SENIOR AND
JUNIOR RULE.
When it is sought to open a highway across a railway, there must be
evidence of intention to dedicate by the owner, acceptance by the munici-
pality, user by the public, and expenditure of public money to keep the
proposed highway in repair and fit for use to bring it within the category
of a public highway under the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1914, c. 192, s. 432.
Without such evidence the proposed highway is junior to the railway and
under the senior and junior rule the whole of the expenditure required will
be placed on the applicant. [Gooderham v. Toronto, 25 Can. S.C.R. 246,
distinguished.]
Hamilton v. Hamilton Radial Elec. Ry. Co., 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 438.
DEDICATION ACCEPTANCE DEVISE RIGHT-OF-WAY SENIOR AND JUNIOR
RULE.
A will devising a right-of-way to a certain class of individuals does not
make a right-of-way, where it crosses a railway, a highway crossing: there
being no evidence of the acceptance of a highway at that point by the
municipality nor recognition of its existence by the railway company: the
railway is senior to the highway at the point of crossing. [Weston v. Can.
Pac. and Grand Trunk Ry. Cos. (Denison Avenue Crossing Case), 7 Can.
Ry. Cas. 79; St. Pierre v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Simplex Avenue Cross-
ing Case), 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 1; Montreal v/Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry.
Cas. 50, followed.]
Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Hamilton (Depew Street Crossing Case), 22 Can.
Ry. Cas. 442.
APPORTIONMENT OF COST VOLUME OF TRAFFIC SENIOR AND JUNIOR RULE.
In apportioning the cost of protection at railway crossings of highways
which have been in existence for many years, the volume of traffic on the
highway and railway respectively, which lias made the crossing danger-
ous, is an element to which more weight should be given than the question
of seniority merely.
Montreal v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (St. Henri Yards Crossing Case). 22
Can. Ry. Cas. 444.
HIGHWAY CROSSING LEGALIZED COSTS OF PROTECTION.
Where a highway crossing over a railway has not been legally estab-
HIGHWAY CROSSINGS. 471
lished prior to April 1, 1909, it may be considered a highway crossing of
the railway at grade level within the meaning of the Railway Grade Cross-
ing Fund," s. 259 (A), 8*9 Edw. VTI. c. 32. s. 7. and the Board may
legalize the crossing and make a contribution of 20 per cent out of that
fund towards the installation of gates, the remainder of the costs of pro-
tection to be borne by the applicants.
Maisonneuve v. Can. Northern Ry. Co.. 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 446.
BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION SENIOR AOT JUNIOR RUIE.
Under the senior and junior role the highway being senior to the rail-
way no part of the cost of reconstructing the bridge on the highway over
the railway should be put upon the respondent city, but the respondent
tramways company being junior to the railway, one-fourth of the cost of
reconstruction to make the bridge strong enough to carry electric cars
should be imposed upon it. [Toronto Railway Co. v. Toronto and Can.
Pac. Ry. Co. (Avenue Road Subway Case), 53 Can. S.C.R. 222. 20 Can.
Ry. Cas. 2SO. followed.]
Can. Pae. Ry. Co v. Montreal and Montreal Tramways Co. * Notre Dame
Street Bridge Casei. 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 31.
STEAM AND MUNICIPALI-T-OWNEO STREET RTS. CONSTRUCTION APPORTION-
MENT OF COSTS - SENIOR AND JUNIOR RULE.
The rule of the senior and junior road does not apply in apportioning
the cost of a municipally-owned street railway whose tracks are subse-
quently laid across the tracks of steam railways upon the street, but the
cost of making the crossing should be borne by the city and the cost of
the protective appliances and their maintenance should be borne equally
by the city and the steam railways.
Edmonton v. Grand Trunk Pacific and Can. Northern Ry. Cos. (Syndi-
cate Avenue Crossing CaseK 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 443.
[Distinguished in Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Kitchener & Waterloo Street
Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 13.]
SENIOR AND JUNIOR RUIE STREET RAH.WAT ACQUIRED BY
A steam railway does not lose its seniority at a crossing on the highway
of an electric street railway when the electric railway is acquired by the
municipality. [Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Toronto, 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 274, af-
firmed: Toronto v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. [19O8] A.C. 54, 7 Can. Ry. Cas.
282: Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. United Counties Ry. Co. (St. Hyacinthe
Crossing ease), 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 294; Can. Northern Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac.
Ry. Co. (Kaiser Crossing Casei. 7 Can. Ry. Cas. 297, followed: Edmonton
Street Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 93. af-
firmed; Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. v. Edmonton Street Ry. Co. (Twenty-
First Street Crossing Case), io Can Ry. Cas. 445: Edmonton v. Grand
Trunk Pacific and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos. (Syndicate Avenue Crossing Case*,
15 Can. Ry. Cas. 443, distinguished.]
Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. Kitchener & Waterloo Street Rv. Co., 24
Can. Ry. Cas. 13.
DIVERSION ELJ MINATION COSTS.
Where crossings of a highway by a railway are eliminated br the
diversion of a highway, the rule usually followed by the Board is to* place
the greater portion of the cost on the railway and the remainder on the
municipality or municipalities interested. In the present case, two-thirds
472 HIGHWAY CROSSINGS.
of the cost was apportioned to the railway and one-third to the local
authorities.
Canadian Government Railways v. Mulgrave et al. (Cesale's and Auld's
Cove Crossing Case), 24 Can. Ey. Cas. 68.
CON STRUCTION JURI S DICTION.
Where a railway company's Act of incorporation, 6 Edw. VII. c. 70, s.
0, enables it to "construct, maintain and operate" . . . equipment and
appliances for the supply of heat, light, water and power, then under ss. 2
(21), 235, 237, of the Railway Act, 1906, the Board has jurisdiction to
authorize the company to lay and maintain across public highways con-
duits containing pressure steam.
Toronto Terminals Ry. Co. v. Toronto and Toronto Harbour Commis-
sioners, 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 71.
[An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed.]
D. Bridges and Viaducts.
FOOTBRIDGE OVER RAILWAY.
The city of Vancouver applied for an order permitting it to construct
at its own expense a wooden footbridge across the tracks of the C.P.R.
Co. at the north end of C. street, where a street ends at the south bound-
ary of the railway right-of-way; the footbridge being in continuation
northerly of the street and leading to wharves, the property of the rail-
way company, on the water front of Vancouver Harbour. The nearest
highway crossing of the railway was several hundred feet distant from
the site of the proposed footbridge. The company contended that the
Board had no jurisdiction to grant the application, its power being limited
to order the erection of a footbridge at an existing highway crossing un-
der s. 239 of the Railway Act, 1906: Held, that under s. 237 the Board
had jurisdiction to grant the application: Held, that the footbridge so
erected shall be a highway across the railway.
Vancouver v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 478.
SEPARATION OF GRADES BRIDGE NUMBER AND SPEED OF TRAINS VEHI-
CULAR AND PEDESTRAIN TRAFFIC.
Application for the construction of a highway bridge to be substituted
for a level crossing over the main line of the respondent: Held (1),
that the three main factors to be considered as creating the necessity
for protection at a highway crossing are, the number of trains, and es-
pecially the rate of speed at which trains run over the crossing, the
amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic over the crossing, and the view
which those using the highway have of trains approaching in both di-
rections. (2) That the rate of speed at which trains run is a matter of
greater importance than the number of trains passing over the crossing.
(3) That only limited weight should be given to arguments based on the
amount of vehicular or pedestrian traffic passing over the crossing. (4)
That the rate of speed at which trains pass over the crossing is a very
important factor. (5) That the extent of the view at such crossing is
a matter of the greatest consequence. (6) That the application should
be granted and a highway bridge substituted for the level crossing over
the double track main line of the respondent notwithstanding the fact
that the traffic on the highway at the point in question is comparatively
light.
Front of Escott v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 315.
HIGHWAY CROSSINGS. 473
RAILWAY CROSSED BY HIGHWAY COST or OVERHEAD BUDGE Mrxici-
PAIJTT.
Leave was graafced by the Board to a municipality to carry a highway
over the right-of-way aad tracks of two railways by means of a uriagr
where BO highway existed and the development of a village had been re-
tarded for want of a crossing upon condition that the municipality bear
the whole cost of construction. An fiiiifinmt was granted over the right-
of-way, with right of support by piers without payment of compensation
to the railway companies.
Bridgeburg v. Grand Trunk and Michigan Central Ry. Cos, 14 Can.
Ry. Cas. 10, 8 D.LR. 951,
[Followed in City of London v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 20 Can. Ry. Cas.
242.]
RAILWAY CROSSED BY HIGHWAY BRIDGE COSY MI'SICIPALTTT.
IB dealing with an application by a municipality to direct a railway
company to carry a new highway across its tracks by an overhead cross-
ing. the Board's jurisdiction is confined to giving directions as to the
structure when railway property is interfered with and upon the munic-
ipality passing a by-law providing a proper and suitable structure for
the purpose an order will go approving of same, and in such case the
whole cost of the new highway will be upon the applicant.
Mission District Board of Trade T. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas.
331.
BRIDGE RAILWAY YABD AFFOBnoxMKVY or COSY.
Where an application was made by a local improvement district for
a bridge carrying the highway over railway tracks, and the limits of an
adjoining city were afterwards extended so that the highway became whol-
ly within the city limits, the Board decided that the district should not
bear any portion of the cost of such bridge, that the city should contrib-
ute $5.000 of the cost for that portion of the bridge which croouea the
through tracks of the railway company, who must bear the whole cost of
extending the bridge across their yard, 20 per cent of the cost of the
whole bridge to be paid out of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund and the
balance by the railway company.
Saskatchewan Local Improvement, etc. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 Can.
Ry. Cas. 337.
RAILWAY AXD YBAOTC BRIDGE REPAIR AXD MAETTEXAXCK USUAL RULE.
The usual rule in cases of repairing and maintaining highway bridges,
apart from special circumstances, is that the railway company is re-
sponsible for railway structures, and the municipality for structure*
handed over to it for municipal and highway purposes.
Assraiboia r. Can. Northern R. Co., 14 Can. R. Cas. 365.
BY IRRIGATION WORKS.
Where in the exercise of a right conferred by statute upon a pnblie
SUl ice corporation, a public highway is interrupted by the work which
the public service corporation is authorized to construct, there is an im-
plied obligation that the public service corporation shall maintain an
adequate miBBtilBfli lor the highway by a bridge or other means. [The King
r. Alberta Ry. ft Irrigation Co.. 3 Alt*. L.R. TO. affirmed on appeal ; Alberta
Ry. ft Irrigation Co. T. The King. 44 Can. S.CJL 5O5, reversed on appeal.
See also The Queen T. Inhabitants of the Isle of Ely, 117 Eng. Reports
671, 15 Q.B. 827, 19 LJJLC. 223, 14 Jur. 956; R/T. Southampton, 17
474 HIGHWAY CEOSSI^GS.
Q.B.D. 435; Hertfordshire County Council v. New River Co., [1904] 2
Ch. 520.]
Rex v. Alberta Railway & Irrigation Co., 7 D.L.R. 513, [1912] A.C. 827.
CROSSING OVER HIGHWAY ORDER OF BOARD FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CON-
DITIONS IMPOSED, WHERE HIGHWAY DIVERTED RESCISSION OF ORDER
NEW ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OVERHEAD BRIDGE.
Re Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co. and Fort Saskatchewan Trail, 7 D.L.R.
891, 21 W.L.R. 364.
BRIDGE MAINTENANCE APPORTIONMENT OF COST- JURISDICTION.
Apart from any question of contract, the obligation of a company main-
taining a bridge carrying a highway over a railway must be construed
with regard to the requirements of the present-day traffic. In 1896, by
an order of the Railway Committee, the respondent railway company was
authorized to carry a highway (King street in the city of Hamilton) over
the railway by a bridge of a certain width. The order contained no pro-
vision as to maintenance, extension or widening of the bridge. Upon the