jurisdiction of the Board.

. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Department of Agriculture for Ontario, 10 Can.
Ry. Cas. 84. 42 Can. S.C.R. 557.
Can. Ry. L, Dig. 2.



18 APPEALS.

LEAVE TO APPEAL JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS.

On an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from an
order of the Board permitting the Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. to
erect, place and maintain its wires beneath the tracks of the Montreal
Terminal Ry. Co.: Held, that, as only a question of jurisdiction and not
of law was involved, the application must lie refused.

Montreal Terminal Ry. Co. v. Montreal Light, Heat and Power Co., 10
Can. Ry. Cas. 133.

LEAVE TO APPEAL WIRES HEXEATH TRACKS.

An order of the Board permitting a power company to maintain its
wires beneath the tracks of a railway company involves a question of
jurisdiction and not of law, from which leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court will be refused.

Montreal Terminal Ry. Co. v. Montreal Light & Power Co., 10 Can. Ry.
Cas. 138.

LEAVE TO APPEAL JURISDICTION OF BOARD.

Where a question of law is one of jurisdiction, the party who disputes
the jurisdiction should apply to a Judge of the Supreme Court for leave
to appeal, but the Board should not, under its power to submit questions
of law to the Supreme Court, submit a question which is really of juris-
diction.

Prince Albert v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 200.

LEAVE TO APPEAL JURISDICTION OF BOARD.

A judge of the Supreme Court of Canada will not grant leave to appeal
from the decision of the Board on a question of jurisdiction if he has
no doubt that such decision was correct. Leave refused.

Halifax Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 58.

ORDERS OF BOARD FORM OF SUBMISSION DF.FINING QUESTIONS OF LAW.

The Supreme Court of Canada will not entertain an appeal under s. 56
(3) of the Railway Act, 1906, unless some specific question is stated, or
otherwise defined, in the order granting leave to appeal made by the Board
which, in its opinion, is a question of law.

Can. Pac. and Can. Northern Ry. Cos. v. Regina Board of Trade (Regina
Toll Case), 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 369* 44 Can. S.C.R. 328.

[See 45 Can. S.C.R.' 321, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 203, affirming 11 Can. Ry.
Cas. 380.]

ORDERS OF BOARD JUHISDICTIOXAL GROUNDS CROWN GRANTING LEAVE.

An appeal from the order of the Board lies to the Supreme Court under
8. 56, subs. 2, of the Railway Act, 1906, after the leave prescribed by
that section lias been obtained, on any question of jurisdiction or law.
Under subs. 3 the Supreme Court is to determine by its judgment tbe
questions submitted, and under subs. 5 to certify its opinion to the Board,
which is to make an order in accordance therewith, and that order by
subs. 9 is declared to be final: Held, that the provisions of s. 56 are
not sufficient to take away the prerogative of the Crown to grant lea\e
to appeal from their judgment. [Grand Trunk and Can. Pac. Ry. Cos.
v. Toronto (Toronto Viaduct Case), 42 Can. S.C.R. 613, 11 Can. Ry. Ca^.
38, affirmed.]

Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Toronto and Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Toronto Via ;
duct Case), 12 Can. Ry. Cas. 378, [1911] A.C. 461.



APPEALS. 19

or RAILWAY AXD MCXICIPAL BOARD.

The right of a municipality to appeal from an order of the Ontario
Railway and Municipal Board permitting a street railway to deviate its
line, is not lost or waived by the failure of the city to appeal from the
mere ruling of the Board in favour of the railway company as to the
right to deviate when the deviation plan was not approved at that bear-
ing. *s it may wait until the making of the formal order and appeal
therefrom on obtaining the requisite leave.

Re Toronto and Toronto ft York Radial Ry. Co 15 Can Rv Cas. *77
12 DX.R. 331. 28 O.LJS. ISO.

[Affirmed in 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 346. 15 D.L.R. 270; applied in Re Toronto
ft York Radial Ry. Co. and Toronto. 26 D.L.R. 244.}

ONTARIO RAILWAY BOAKD SPECIAL ACT Xo EXPRE>S RIGHT CITES Jr-

RISDICTIOX OF APPELLATE CorRT TO GRANT LEAVE.

S. 48 (1) of the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board Art (R.S.O.
1914, e- 186). which provides that an appeal shall lie from the Board
to a Divisional Court upon a question of jurisdiction or upon any question
of law. applies to the jurisdiction given to the Board by the Ontario Act.
1917, 7 Geo. V. e. 92, s. 4. by which power is given to the City of Toronto
to expropriate part of the Toronto i York Radial Ry. and although under
the later Act no right of appeal is expressly given to the County of York,
the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to grant leave.

Re Toronto and Toronto & York Radial Ry. Co. el aL, 23 Can. Ry.
Cas. 218, 42 O.L.R. 545. 43 D.L.R. 49.

C. From Expropriation Awards.

ORDER BY JUDGE ix CHAMBERS AS TO MONEYS DEPOSITED.

The College of Ste. Therese having petitioned for an order for payment
to them of a sum of $4.000 deposited by the appellants as security for
land taken for railway purposes, a Judge of the Superior Court in Cham-
bers after formal answer and hearing of the parties granted the order
under the Railway Act. R.S.C.. 1886, c. 109 ? *. 8. subs. 31. The railway
company appealed against this order to the Court of Queen's Bench for
Lower Canada and that Court affirmed the decision of the Judge of the
Superior Court: Held, that the order in question having been made by
a Judge sitting in Chambers, and, further, acting under the statute as a
persona designata. the proceedings had not originated in a Superior Court
within the meaning of s. 28 of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act.
and the case was therefore not appealable.

Can. Pae- Ry. Co. v. Ste. Therese. 16 Can. S.C.R. 606.

[Affirmed in St. John 4 Quebec Ry. Co. v. Bull. 16 Can. Ry. Cas, 2S4.
followed in Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co. v. Smith. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 98.]

AilOCST EC CONTROVERSY COSTS.

In a railway expropriation case the respondent in naming his arbitrator
declared that he only appointed him to watch over the arbitrator of the
company, but the company recognized him officially and subsequently an
award of $1.974.25 damages and costs for land expropriated was made
under Art. 5164, R.S.Q. The demand for expropriation as formulated in
their notice to arbitrate by the appellants was for the width of their
track, but the award granted damages for three feet outride of the fence*
on each side as being valueless. In an action to set aside the award:



20 APPEALS.

Held, affirming the judgment of the Courts below, that the appointment
of respondent's arbitrator was valid under the statute and bound both
parties, and that in awarding damages for three feet of land injuriously
affected on each side of the track the arbitrators had not exceeded their
jurisdiction. Strong and Taschereau, JJ., doubted if the amount in con-
troversy was sufficient to give the Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal,
the amount of the award being under $2,000, and to make up the appeal-
able amount either interest accrued after the date of the award and after
action brought or the costs taxed on the arbitration proceedings would
have to be added.

Quebec, Montmorency & Charlevoix Ry. Co. v. Mathieu, 19 Can. S.C.R.
426.

[Distinguished in Dufresne v. Guevrement, 26 Can. S.C.R. 219.]

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF APPEAL JUBISDICTION.

In expropriation proceedings under the Railway Act a single Judge of
the Superior Court may take judicial notice of the proceedings on appeal
from the award, though such appeal was not by direct action, but by
petition, and that even in the absence of rules of special practice to this
effect as such rules are not required to confer jurisdiction. Hence it fol-
lows that such appeal may be taken without direct action and by means
of a petition. The appeal in this case will lie "as in a cause of original
jurisdiction" on all questions of law and fact according to the evidence
before the arbitrators. The Judge can only alter the award when it is
clear that it results from a gross error of law, or in appreciation of the
facts, on the part of the arbitrators.

Neilson v. Quebec Bridge Co., 21 Que. S. C. 329.

[Approved in Lamarre v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 11 Que. P.R. 217.]

APPEAL TO COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Quaere, does an appeal lie to the Court of King's Bench from a judg-
ment of the Superior Court sitting in an appeal from an award of arbi-
tration under s. 200 of the Railway Act, 1906?

Quebec, Montreal & Southern Ry. Co. v. Landry, 19 Que. K.B. 82.

APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT.

For an appeal to the Superior Court from the award of arbitrators in
expropriation proceedings under the Railway Act a petition alone is suffi-
cient; the petition need not be accompanied by a writ.

Lamarre v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 11 Que. P.R. 216.

RECUSATION OF ARBITRATOR EXPROPRIATION BY A RAILWAY COMPANY.

No appeal lies to the Supreme Court of Canada from a judgment of the
Court of Queen's Bench, confirming a judgment of the Superior Court,
which dismissed a recusation of an arbitrator appointed in an expropria-
tion by a railway company.

Richelieu Ry. v. M6nard, 5 Que. P.R. 179, Wurtele, J.

DISCONTINUANCE OF EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS.

An order allowing or confirming a discontinuance, by the city of Mon-
treal, of expropriation proceedings under ss. 429 to 439 of the 63 Viet,
c. 58, is not a final judgment of the Superior Court susceptible of appeal
to the Court of King's Bench, and, therefore, no appeal lies from it to
the Court of Review. Per Archibald, J. : The city had no right to dis-
continue the proceedings, but the order allowing it to do so is not a
judgment, it is a purely ministerial act of the Judge, and is not there-



APPEALS. 21

fore susceptible of review. Per Charbonneau, J.: Hie order, if it is A
judgment, must be a, final one, and, as s. 439 expressly takes away the
right of appeal from a final judgment homologating the report of the
commissioners for expropriation, the right of appeal is impliedtr taken
away from this one. Per Fortin. J.: The order is a judgment* of the
Superior Court susceptible of appeal to the Court of King's Bench, and,
therefore, an appeal lies from it to the Court of Review. In this case,
the judgment was founded in law and should be confirmed. The Judge,
therefore, concurred in striking out the inscription in review, which
leaves the judgment undisturbed.

Be Lafontaine Park; Montreal v. Cashing. 40 Que. S.C. 1.

"EVKN l" READ DISTRJBL liVELY ~ISST/E~ AS DISTINGUISHED FROM "EvEST'

COSTS or AXD IXCIDESTAL TO ARBITRATION.

Sam Kee, having obtained an award from arbitrators appointed under
the Railway Act, 1903. which award, by reason of s. 162 of the Act.
entitled him to the costs of the arbitration, the railway company ap-
pealed to the full Court, advancing several distinct grounds of appeal,
on all of which, with the exception of the rate of interest allowed by
the arbitrators, they failed, the interest being reduced to the statutory
rate, from six per cent to five per cent: Held (Irving. J_ dissenting >.
(1) that the word "event." in s. 100 of the Supreme Court Act, 1904,
may be read distributivery. |2 That s. 162 of the Railway Act, 1903,
does not apply to costs of appeals to the full Court from award of
arbitrators, but that such appeal is an independent proceeding, and is
therefore governed by s. 100 of the Supreme Court Act. 1904. (3
That the success off the appellant company on the question of interest was
merely an "issue" arising on the appeal, and not an "event" on which it
was taken.

Vancouver. Westminster * Yukon Ry. Co. v. Sam Kee, 12 B.CLR, 1.

[Following in Hopper v. Dnnsmuir. 12 B.CJR. 22.]

CHOICE OF FORCM.

By a. 168 of the Railway Act, 1903, if an award by arbitrators on ex-
propriation of land by a railway company exceeds $600. any dissatis-
fied party may appeal therefrom to a Superior Court, which in Ontario
means the High Court or the Court of Appeal I Interpretation Act, RJS.C.
1906, e. 1, 8. 34. subs. 26 : Held, that if an appeal from an award is
taken to the High Court, there can be no further appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada, which cannot even give special leave.

James Bay Ry. Co. T. Armstrong. 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 196, 38 Can. S.CIL
51L,

[Affirmed in [1909] A.C. 624. 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 1: followed in St. John
A Quebec Ry. Co. v. Bull. 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 2*4.]
APPEAL TO HIGH COCBT No FTSTHER APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT.

According to the true construction of s. 16j8 of the Railway Act. 1903.
the appeal given thereby to a Superior Conn from an award under that
Aet lies in the Province of Ontario to either the Court of Appeals or
the High Court of Justice therein at the option of an appellant: I
in ease of appeal to the High Court, inasmuch as it is the last re~or
in the province within the meaning of the Supreme and Exchequer
Courts Act. R.S.C. 1886. c. 13-5. s. 126. there is no appeal therefrom to
the Supreme Court of Canada.

James Bay Ry. Co. v. Armstrong. 10 Can. Ry. Cas.
624.

[Relied on in Quebec and Montreal Southern Ry. Co. v. Landry, 19



22 APPEALS.

Que. K. B. 89; Vallit-res v. Ontario and Quebec Ry. Co., 19 Que. K. B.
524; followed in Re Davies & James Bay Ry. Co., 30 Can. Ry. Cas.
2->(>, 20 O.L.R. 534; followed in St. John & Quebec Ry. Co. v. Bull, 10 Can.
Ry. Cas. 284.]

KXPIRY OF STATUTOKY PERIOD ORDER GRANTING LEAVE.

The Court refused to entertain a motion to quash the appeal on the
ground that it had not been taken within the sixty days limited by the
statute and that an order by a Judge of the Court appealed from after
the expiration of that time was ultra vires, and could not be permitted
under s. 42 of the Supreme and Exchequer Courts Act, R.S.C. c. 135.

Temiscouata Ry. Co. v. St. Clair, 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 367, 38 Can. S.C.R.
230.

INVALID ORDER OF POSSESSION APPEAL FROM ADDITIONAL RELIEF, INJUNC-
TION.

The plaintiff, instead of taking an appeal from an invalid order grant-
ing possession to lands taken by a railway company under invalid ex-
propriation proceedings, brought an action against the railway com-
pany, claiming injunction and damages: Held, that the plaintiff could
maintain the action, for the reason that, even if an appeal would lie from'
tho order, the plaintiff was entitled to additional relief by way of in-
junction and damages, which could not be given on appeal.

Girouard v. Grand Trunk Pac. Ry. Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 354, 2 Alta.
L.R. 54.

APPEAL TO COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Under s. 209 of the Railway Act, 1906, an appeal from an award only
lies to a Superior Court. If an appeal has already been heard by the
Superior Court, there cannot be a further appeal to the Court of King's
Bench.

Vallieres v. Ontario & Quebec Ry. Co., 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 18, 11 Que.
P.R. 245, 19 Que. K.B. 521.

[Applied in Bickerdike v. Montreal P. & I. Ry. Co., 11 Que. P.R.
260.]

DECISION OF ARBITRATORS.

(1) In a railway expropriation an appeal to the Superior Court
from the decision of the arbitrators may be instituted before the award
is deposited with the records of said Court. (2) It is not essential
that plaintiff should allege affirmatively that the appeal is taken within
a month after the reception of the notice of the award.

Bickerdike v. Montreal Park & Island Ry. Co., 11 Que. P.R. 260.

TIME DELAYS PETITION.

( 1 ) In a railway expropriation every party to the arbitration may
appeal within one month after receiving a written notice of the making
of the award. (2) If such notice has been given on the 9th of December,
the appeal may be presented on the 10th of January next, if the 9th is
a Sunday. (3) A petition to appeal from the award of arbitrators in a
railway expropriation is not in the nature of an application for certiorari
sind does not need to be supported by adidavit.

Montreal Park & Island Ry. Co. v. Bickerdike, 11 Que. P.R. 261.

REVIEW OF AWARD INADEQUACY OF COMPENSATION.

No appeal lies in the Province of Quebec to the Court of King's Bench



APPEALS. 2:3

from the judgment of tie Superior Conrt upon an appeal under s. 3W of
the Railway Aft. J906. from the award of an arbitrator.

Holland T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 14 Can. Ry. CAS. 21. 7 D.L.R. 441.

Riies or DECISION PBOYIXCIAI. COCBTS FMAOWING DECISION OF PKTTT
Corsdi_

Under the British Colombia Railway Act. upon an appeal from the
award of arbitrators fixing damages under eminent domain proceedings
where the principle applicable to such an appeal has already been laid
down by the Privy Council under the Dominion Railway Act, 1S8S. which
is. so far as material, identical in language with the British Columbia
.-tatnte. that construction win be adopted. [Atlantic Jfc North-West. Ry.
Co. v. Wood. [1895] AX. 257, 64 LJ.P.C. 116. applied.]

Can. North. Pae. Ry. Co. v. Dominion Glazed Cement Co. (B. C->, 14
Can. Ry. Cas. 263, 7 DJJL 174.

REVTJEW OF FACTS.

The Appellate Court, on an appeal from an award in eminent domain pro-
ceedings. should come to its own conclusion upon all the evidence, paying
due regard to the award and findings and reviewing them as it would
those of a subordinate Court. On an appeal from an award, the latter
will not be set aside merely because the Appellate Court disagrees with
the reasoning of the arbitrators, but will stand if it can be supported on
any ground sufficient in law. James Bay Ry. Co. v. Armstrong, [1909]
AJC. 624. 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 1. referred to."

Re Ketrheson and Can. Northern Ontario Ry. Co.. 13 D.L.R. $54.

{Followed in Green v. Can. Northern Ry. Co- 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 171, 8
Sask. LJL 53.]

UXSATISFACTOBT AWAKD BASED OX t~\OOXT*ADICTEn EVIDKXCE.

The fact that arbitrators in awarding damage* for the expropriation
of a railway right-of-way through a brick-making plant which entailed
additional expense for the carriage of brick-making materials to the fac-
tory. based their award on uncontradicted evidence as to an impracticable
system of transportation will not justify interference with the award by
the Appellate Court if there is evidence to support it, even though the
Court is dissatisfied with the award: as the appeal must be dealt with
on the evidence produced before the arbitrators and the Court cannot
remit to them for the taking of additional testimony an award made
under the Railway Act. [Atlantic A North-West Ry. Co. v. Wood.
[1895] A.C. 257, and Re McAlpine and Lake Erie i Detroit River Ry. Co.,
3 Can. Ry. Cas. 95, 3 O.LJL 230. referred to.]

Re Davies and James Bay Ry. Co.. 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 78. 13 D.LR- 912.
28 OJLR. 544.



DOMAIN REMITTING AWAD TO AKBrreATOfcs FAILCM: TO ITEM-

IZE I-CMP SUM AS EQCTVALEXT TO VEKHICT OF jrVf.

On an appeal from the award of arbitrators in an expropriation pro-
ceeding the Court has power, under s. 46 of the Expropriation Aet.
RJvM 1902, c. 61, to refer back the award for reconsideration and
redetennination where it is impossible to deal intelligently with the appeal
by reason of a lump sum being awarded, without any indication by the
arbitrators, who refused to give their reasons for their award, as to the
nature of the items of damages comprising it. An award of a lump
sum as damages for land expropriated will not be treated on appeal
equivalent to the verdict of a jury, where it if apparent from the evidence



24 APPEALS.

that some items entering into the award should have been eliminated as a
matter of law. [Vezina v. The Queen, 17 Can. S.C.R. 1, at 16, followed.]

Re Van Home and Winnipeg & Northern Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 72,
14 D.L.R. 897.

EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN AWARD.

Where, in an arbitration proceeding, the appellant's evidence was directed
to establishing damages on a wrong basis, and, on appeal, lie does not
seek a rehearing on that ground, but insists that such evidence was proper,
the award will be upheld if there is any evidence to sustain it. (Per
Harvey, C.J., and Walsh, J. )

Saskatchewan Land & Homestead Co. v. Calgary & Edmonton Ry. Co.,
16 Can. Ry. Cas. 114, 14 D.L.R, 193.

JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL AFTER APPEAL FROM ARBITRATORS TO JUDGE.

No further appeal lies to the Court en bane from an order of a judge
of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick setting aside an award on an
appeal to him under s. 17, subss. (20) and (21) of C.S.X.B. 1903,
c. 91, which permit an appeal on questions of law or fact to a judge
of such Court from an award made by arbitrators in an expropriation pro-
ceeding. [Birely v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Ry. Co., 25 A.R. (Out.)
88 Canadian Pacific Ry. Co. v. St. Therese, 16 Can. S.C.R. 606; Ottawa
Elec. Co. v. Brennan, 31 Can. S.C.R. 311; and Re Armstrong & James Bay
Ry. Co., 12 O.L.R. 137, 5 Can. Ry. Cas. 306; James Bay Ry. Co. v. Arm-
strong, 38 Can. S.C.R. 511, 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 196, affirmed 1909, A.C. 624, 10
Can. Ry. Cas. 1, followed.]

St. John & Quebec Ry. Co. v. Bull, 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 284.

REVIEW OF AWARD REASONS NOT APPARENT OF RECORD.

The reasons or principles which guided arbitrators in making an award
not contained in the award or supplemented therewith, will not be reviewed
on appeal.

St. John & Quebec Ry. Co. v. Fraser, 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 177, 24 D.L.R.
339.

EMINENT DOMAIN PRESENT AND FUTURE VALUE OF LANDS.

An award of arbitrators increased by the Appellate Division (Ontario),
from $9,350 to $15,842, was restored by the Supreme Court, the amount
added for filling having been already allowed in the award and the
increase in the award for frontage value to a portion of the land taken
on Bank Street, a country road outside the city limits being disallowed,
where there was free land in abundance in the neighbourhood with no
building operations in progress and no evidence of actual demand of land
for building purposes. Upon an appeal from an award under s. 209 of the
Railway Act, 1906, it is competent for the Courts to decide any question
of fact upon the evidence taken before the arbitrators as in a case of
original jurisdiction, subject to the following rules: (1) An appeal upon
a question which is merely one of value should be discouraged. Musson
v. Canada Atlantic Ry. Co., 17 L.N. 179, at p. 181, followed. (2) There
must be such a plain and decided preponderance of evidence against the
findings of the arbitrators as to border strongly on the conclusive. (3) The
latter rule should be more strictly followed w r here the arbitrators are
experienced in such matters, have local knowledge and the great advantage
of a personal view of the premises, and of seeing and hearing the wit-
nesses. Lemoine v. Montreal, 23 Can. S.C.R. 390, at p. 392; Kearney v. The
Queen, Cam. S.C. Cas. 344, at p. 347, followed. In eminent domain pro-



APPEALS. 23

ceedings what is to be ascertained is the value to the owner as it existed
at the date of the taking, not to the taker, such value consists in all
the advantages which the land possesses, present or future, but it is the
present value alone of such advantages that falls to be determined.
Cedars Rapid* Co. v. Laeoste. [1914] A.C. 560, at p. 576, followed.

Can. Xorthern Ry. Co. v. Billings, 19 Can. Ry. Cas. 193.

[Followed in Lake Erie t Xorthern Ry. Co. v. Muir. 21 Can Rv Ca*
350, 32 DJLuR. 252.]

YATCE OF LAND EVIDENCE EXPROPRIATION.

The Court refused to set aside an award of arbitrators having the
advantage of local knowledge and personal inspection of the property
upon concurrent testimony of a large number of witnesses in favour of
the owner and no contradictory evidence was given on behalf of the
appellant railway company: Decision of the Ontario Appellate Divi-
sion affirmed. 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 286. Per Anglin. J. (dissenting). An
objection was properly taken against the introduction of evidence of more
than five expert witnesses (see R.S.C. c. 145. s. T) and the proper course
was to eliminate from the evidence all testimony improperly introduced,
and to determine as in a case of original jurisdiction (but see Wood v.
Atlantic & X. W. Ry. Co. (1895jl, A.C. 257) what the award should be
on the remaining testimony.

Can. Xorthern Ry. Co. v." Ketcheson. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 104, 32 DJJR. 629.

Coiner's POWER TO REMIT AWARD INVALIDITY OF AWARD IMPROPER EVI-
DENCE EXPERTS.

The provisions of the Arbitration Act (Alta.. 1909, c. 6) apply to
arbitrations under the Alberta Railway Act (1907, c. 8), so as to em-
power the Court or a Judge, on appeal from an award, to remit it to
the arbitrators for reconsideration. The reception by the arbitrators of
testimony of a number of expert witnesses greater than that limited by
the Evidence Act (Alta., 1910, 2nd Se*s.. e. 3) is a ground for setting aside
the award.

Can. Xorthern Western Ry. Co. v. Moore. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 112, 53 Can.
S.C.R. 519, 31 D.L-R. 456.

REASONS FOR AWARD EXAMINATION OF ARBITRATORS APPOINTMENT BT