Re Amalgamation Agreements, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 150.
ROCTE JiAF- LOCATIOX IT-ASS.
Application for approval of its location, "Prince Rupert westerly, mile
to mile 3.23.** The applicant proceeded to construct the roadbed, but
found that it could not obtain some $400.000 under ita contracts with the
Government unless it was able to shew that the three and one-quarter
miles of railway had been constructed under the provisions of the Rail-
way Act. 1906. The applicant contended that this being merely the yard
of the company, no route map or location plan was required: Held il .
that the company not having complied with the provisions of ss. 157.
158, 159 of the Railway Act. the application must be refused. (2> That
the Board had no jurisdiction under 9 A 10 Edw. VLT. c. 50. s. 2. empower-
ing the Board to approve of works constructed without approval before
590 RAILWAY BOARD.
December 31st, 1909, since the roadbed in question had been constructed
subsequent to that date.
Re Prince Rupert Location, Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 13 Can. Ry.
Cas. 153.
STREET RAILWAYS PROVINCIAL RAILWAY "THROUGH TRAFFIC."
The Railway -Act, 1906, does not confer power on the Board to make
orders respecting through traffic over a provincial railway or tramway
which connects with or crosses a railway subject to the authority of the
Parliament of Canada. Davies and Anglin, JJ., contra. Per Fitzpatrick,
C.J., and Girouard and Duff, JJ. : The provisions of subs, (b) of s. 8
of the Railway Act arc ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada.
Montreal Street Ry. Co. v. Montreal, 11 Can. Ry. Cas. 203, 43 Can.
S.C.R. 197.
[Affirmed in [1912] A.C. 333, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 541.]
PROVINCIAL STREET RAILWAY.
By an order dated May 4, 1909, the Board of Railway Commissioners
for Canada (created by Dominion Railway Act, 1903, . and beyond the
jurisdiction and control of any province), directed with regard to through
traffic over the Federal Park Ry. and the provincial street railway, both
within and near the city of Montreal, that the latter should ''enter into
any agreement or agreements that may be necessary to enable" the former
company to carry out its provisions with respect to the rates charged so
as to prevent any unjust discrimination between any classes of the cus-
tomers of the Federal Line: Held, that the said order so far as it re-
lated to the provincial street railway was made without jurisdiction.
[Montreal Street Ry. Co. v. Montreal, 43 Can. S.C.R. 197, 11 Can. Ry.
Cas. 203, affirmed.]
Montreal v. Montreal Street Ry. Co., [1912] A.C. 333, 13 Can. Ry. Cas.
541.
FOREIGN CARRIERS REDUCTION OF RATES.
The Board has no jurisdiction to order a reduction in rates from ini-
tial points in the United States. [Can. Northern Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk
and Canadian Pacific Ry. Cos. (Muskoka Rates (No. 2)), 10 Can. Ry.
Cas. 139 at pp. 147, 148, followed.]
Continental, Prairie & Winnipeg Oil Cos. v. Can. Pac. etc., R.W. Cos.,
13 Can. Ry. Cas. 156.
[Followed in Fullerton, etc., Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Can. Ry. Cas.
79.]
CONSTRUCTION OF PRIVATE SIDING.
Notwithstanding provisions in an agreement under which a private
industrial spur or siding has been constructed entitling the railway com-
pany to make use of it for the purpose of affording shipping facilities for
themselves and persons other than the owners of the land upon which it
has been built, the Board, except on expropriation and compensation, has
not the power, on the application under s. 226 of the Railway Act, 1906,
to order the construction and operation of an extension of such spur or
siding as a branch of the railway with which it is connected. [Black-
woods v. Can. North. Ry. Co., 44 Can. S.C.R. 92, applied. Duff, J., dissent-
ing.]
Clover Bar Coal Co. v. Humberstone, etc., Cos., 45 Can. S.C.R. 346,
13 Can. Ry. Cas. 162.
[Distinguished in Boland v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 60,
21 D.L.R. 531.]
RAILWAY BOARD. 591
EXFKXSS COMPANIES JLOC*' AXD THaOCCH TOLLS -Joi VT THaOCGH
Application for a joint through tariff of tolls from point* in the United
to Spokaae to Begiaa, Sasfc^ of f2 per 100 Ibe, oa her
lies, small fruit aad vegetables. The Great Northern Express Co. agreed
to accept 80 cento per 100 Us. oat of whatever toll the applicant might
with the respoadeat hased apoa 39.000 Ibs. minimum to the point
froai Spokane. The respondent's tariffs OB the said commodi-
ties froai Spokaae to Calgary. Retina aad Medicine Hat were #* per 100
lb*_ ! 20,000 Ibs.. aad to Strathcoaa aad Saskatoon 1^*5 per
100 Ib*, aad by adding the local to Spokaae made through tolls of 3_10
aad S3.35 respectively. The applicant eoateaded that the Board might
require the respondent to reinstate the joint through tariff ia effect with
the Great Xorthera Express Co. ia 1908: Held (li. that nader s. 336
of the Railway Act. 1906. the Board had mo jurisdiction to order the ini-
tial foreign carrier to file or concur ia joint tariffs at the request of the
applicant. (2 That while the Board eooJd not require the foreign car-
rier to either file or concur ia filing joint tariffs, it might require the
respondent to file same if the foreign carrier cone m red mad rice versa if
such joint tariffs were thought by the Board to be fair aad reasonable.
(3) That siace the foreign carrier had not matin ml. and the differeace
ia toll was such that it would be unfair to require the Canadian carrier
to accept all the shrinkage necessary to bring the toll down to $?; this
application mast be refused. [Stockton et aL T. Caa. Pac. By. COL, 9
Caa. By. Cas. 165. distinguished.]
Stockton et aL T. Dominion Express Cou 13 Caa. By. Cas. 439, 3 DJLR.
Ml
Coxsrnrcnox rauao OTEXXXG BOAB FOB TKAFFIC.
Application to compel the respoadeat to open its line for traffic from
Prairie Creek, westward. The respondent carried contractor"* supplies
aad labourers for the eoastruetioa of the railway, part of the supplies
were sold and not used by the contractors. The respoadeat also carried
pamna&fti aad accepted fares froai the general public, publishing a lime.
table that it was operating the main line of its railway betweea Edmon-
ton and Fhzhngh: Held, (li that notwithstanding s. 261 of the Bail-
way Act that the railway should not be opeaed for traffic (other than
for pui puses of construction by the company > without leave of the Board,
it was reasonable that it nVould carry ordinary supplies aad labourers for
contractors daring the construction period, f i That the respoadeat aad
violated . 2*1 by establishing a general passenger service. (3| That by
a, 317 the mpimilinl was prohibited front unjust discrimination in favour
of its contractors by carrying their supplies for sale ia competition
nther merchants. (4) That the lespondeat should cease aajaal
nation subject to a fine of 100 for any aad every case of default or coa-
tinnation. f5t That the board had no jurisdiction to compel the respond-
ent to open its railway for traffic; but if it applied for permission to do
so it must carry freight aad passengers under the provisions of the stat-
ate.
British Columbia aad Alberta Municipalities T. Grand Trunk Pacific
By. Co.. 13 Can. By. Cas. 463.
\V~OKKS COXSTTCCTED ai'IUULT LEAVE.
The Board has no jurisdiction to approve of works constructed without
592 EAILWAY BOARD.
its leave subsequent to December 31, 1909. The statute 9 & 10 Edw. VII.
(D. ) c. 50, s. 2, does not apply to works constructed after that date.
Re Grand Trunk Pac. Branch Lines Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 12, 7 D.L.R,
885.
LIMITATION OP LIABILITY.
It is within the power of the Board under the provisions of the Rail-
way Act, 1906, to authorize a contract relieving the company from lia-
bility to one traveling in charge of live stock at a reduced fare, for in-
juries caused by the negligence of the company or otherwise.
Robinson v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 8 D.L.R. 1002, 27 O.L.R. 290, 14 Can.
Ry. Cas. 444.
[Reversed in Robinson v. G.T.R., 12 D.L.R. 696, 47 Can. S.C.R. 622, on
other grounds.]
SPECIAL AND GENERAL ORDERS OB' BOARD ERECTIONS NEAR TRACK.
A special order of the Board under subs, (g) of s. 30, of the Railway
Act, 1906, providing that water stand pipes shall be placed not less than
7 feet 6 inches from the centre of the tracks of the C.P.-R., is not abrogated
by a subsequent general order, not retroactive in effect, which prohibited
the placing of water stand pipes, so that there should be less than 2
feet (> inches between them and the widest engine cab, so as to render the
railway company liable to a brakeman who was injured by coming in
contact, while riding on a ladder on the side of a car, with a stand pipe
which was 7 feet 6 inches from the centre of the track, but not 2 feet 6
inches from the side of the widest engine cab. A general order of the
Board under subs, (g), providing that thereafter no structure more than
4 feet in height shall be placed within 6 feet from the nearest rail of a
railway track, and that no water stand pipe shall l>e placed so that there
shall be less than 2 feet 6 inches between it and the widest engine cab,
is not retroactive, and does not contemplate the removal of stand pipes
within such prohibited distance erected Tinder a special order of such
Board permitting the C.P.R. to maintain its stand pipes at a lesser dis-
tance. [Kutnsr v. Phillips, [1891] 2 Q.B. 267, specially referred to.]
Clark v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. (B.C.), 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 51, 2 D.L.R. 331.
[Referred to in Kizer v. Kent Lumber Co., 5 D.L.R. 317.]
EXPRESS COMPANIES EXCLUSIVE OPERATION.
The Board cannot compel an express company to operate and compete
over the line of a railway from which it has withdrawn by reason of the
acquirement of the line by a railway operating an express service through
its allied express company. [Continental, Prairie and Winnipeg Oil Cos.
v. Can. Pac. et al. Ry. Cos., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 156, followed.]
Shippers by Express v. Can. Northern Express Co. and Central Ontario
Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 183.
TOLLS AND RATES INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC.
The Board has no jurisdiction to regulate an international rate except
in so far as the haul within Canada is concerned.
Dominion Sugar Co., Canadian Freight Assn., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 188.
RAILWAY ON STREET COMPENSATION TO LANDOWNERS.
The Board may make it a condition of the occupation of a street by a
railway company's tracks running along that street, that the railway
company should compensate landowners injuriously affected because of the
RAILWAY BOARD. 593
operation of the railway on the highway, if such landowners hare not
been compensated in some other way.
Hamilton T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Re Shunting on Ferguson avenue.,
Hamilton), 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 196, 5 D.L.R. 60.
PBOVIXCIAL, BAH.WAT.
The St. J. Q. Ry. Co_ a provincial railway company having applied
to the Board under U. 227. 229 of the Railway Act, 1906, for authority
to connect its tracks with those of the C-P.R. Co. and operate its trains
over them between certain points, to rearrange certain tracks of the C.P.R-
Co_ construct and operate switches from its lines at certain points, and
make other physical changes. The Board refused the application on the
ground that the benefits of the provisions of the Railway Act allowing one
railway company to use the lines and appliances of another can only be
given to Dominion railways, and that the statutes 1 * 2 Geo. V. (1911
c. 11, and 2 Geo. V. (1912) e. 49, do not place the applicant railway under
the jurisdiction of the Board. [Preston A Berlin Street Ry. Co. v" Grand
Trunk Ry. Co.. 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 142, followed.]
St. John I Quebec Ry. Co. v. Can. Pae. Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Gas. 360.
COMFIBTIOX OF RAILWAY LOCATION PLA3CS APPROVAL OPESTX6 FO*
TRAFFIC.
The Board has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for the com-
pletion of a line of railway where the route map has been approved. Its
jurisdiction is confined to approval of the location plans and upon appli-
cation to open the railway lines for traffic when constructed.
Ifervin Board of Trade "v. Can. Northern Ry. Co, 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 363.
STOP-OVER PRIVILEGES DEMTBRAGE.
It is entirely within the discretion of the carriers to grant or withhold
stop-over privileges on carload and part carload shipments during its
transportation to final destination at concentration points for the pur-
pose of storage, inspection or completion of carload; therefore, where the
stop-over privilege is not granted, unjust discrimination not having been
established, the Board is without jurisdiction to direct that this privilege
shall be given by the carrier.
Simcoe Fruit,* etc., Assn. v. Grand Trunk, etc., Ry. Cos., 14 Can. Ry.
Cas. 370.
RAILWAY AM> TRAFFIC BRIDGE MoaciPALrrT REPAIR AJTD JCADTIEXAXCB.
The Board has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute between a municipal-
ity and a railway company as to which of them is liable for the repair and
maintenance of a combined railway and traffic bridge, which ends on
railway property, on both sides of a river, and whose approaches run over
a municipal highway; the matter is entirely between the railway company
and the provincial authorities, who aided in the construction of the bridge.
Assiniboia v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 365.
NOXEXISTEXT RAILWAY EECOXSTRCCTIOX REOPEXTXC FOB TRAFFIC.
The Board has no jurisdiction to entertain an application where the
wrong complained of happened t*-n years before the Board was constituted,
nor can it compel a railway company, the *ucee**or in title of the re-
spondent, to reconstruct and reopen for traffic, with proper facilities, a
portion of its railway which has become nonexistent.
Chambers of Commerce Federation v. South Eastern Ry. Co.. 14 Can.
By. Cas. 367.
Can. Ry. I* Dig. 38L-
594 RAILWAY BOARD.
TOLLS FOREIGN RAILWAY.
The Board, not having any jurisdiction over the tolls charged in a for-
eign country, no comparison can be made between them and those in
Canada for the transportation of the same commodity.
Imperial Rice Milling Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 Can. Ry. Cas. 375.
OPEXIXG ROAD FOR TRAFFIC.
The Board cannot compel a railway company to open and operate for
passenger and freight traffic a newly constructed road, as the determina-
tion as to when it shall be opened for traffic rests solely with the railway
company.
Re Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 3 D.L.R. 819.
OPEXIXG ROAD FOR TRAFFIC.
Where a railway company had been carrying passengers over a newly
constructed road that had not been opened for traffic by an order of the
Board under s. 261 of the Railway Act, 1906, the Board will refuse to
make any order directing the company to open the road for traffic on that
account, but will forbid the company from continuing to carry passengers
except under the provisions of the Railway Act.
Re Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 3 D.L.R. 819.
RAILWAY ix COURSE OF COXSTRUCTIOX.
A railway company may rightfully carry as freight over a road that is
in course of construction, for an independent contractor, who was building
it, ordinary construction and camp supplies necessary to such work and,
as passengers, it may also carry labourers for employment thereon, not-
withstanding the road has not been opened for general traffic by an order
of the Board under s. 261 of the Railway Act, 1906.
Re Grand Trunk Pacific Ry. Co., 3 D.L.R. 819.
JURISDICTIOX PROVISIOXAL DIRECTORS IRREGULARITIES.
The Board will not pass on any issue arising between provisional di-
rectors of a railway company and municipalities in regard to the legality
of payments for calls on subscriptions made by the provisional directors,
or other issues of such character.
Re Burrard Inlet Tunnel & Bridge Co., 10 D.L.R. 723.
JURISDICTION PARTIALLY ORGANIZED COMPANY STATUS.
A railway company, whose organization has not been completed as re-
quired by the provisions of the Railway Act, but which is assuming to
carry on business through its provisional directors, has no standing to
file detailed plans of its undertaking with the Board, it being necessary,
on the part of the company to file evidence with the Board shewing that
the provisions of the Railway Act relating to organization have been com-
plied with as a condition precedent to its right to file such plans, or of
its right to any recognition by the Board of any such partially organized
company.
Re Burrard Inlet Tunnel & Bridge Co., 10 D.L.R. 723.
WlDENIXG RIGHT-OF-WAY RETROSPECTIVE ORDER.
The Board cannot, seven years after the filing and approval of the
location plans of a railway, by an order not based on s. 162 or 167 of the
Railway Act, 1906, permit the filing of a new plan to take effect as of the
RAILWAY BOARD. 5S5
date of lie origiaaL so as to {acreage the width of the maapiay's ri*ht-
of war.
T. Caa. Pae. Ry. Co, 4S Caa. &CLR. Hft*. 11 DJLJL *.
OTEBHEAP BKIUC-E SITKEIT KAIL VAT.
TV- Board has jjurisii<twB. onoVr SB. S fa), 39. 237. 23S of the Railway
Art, 190*. as aawaded by S * 9 Edv. VII. e- 32, to reqaire a traarwa*
to hear a portkM of the cost of aa overhead bridge OB the eleva-
of a city street ca which soch ttBpaay~ car limt* rut. at the pant
where it crosses a Dmamaioa railway.
British GotaariMa EInr. Ry. Co. T. YaacovrcT, et<^_ 15 Cam. Rr. Ca& 2X7,
48 Cam. &CLR- 9, 13 DLLJL 3ML
[Rercned m IS Ca^ Rr. Ca& SS7. 19 D.L.R. 91: distBgokhed: n
Torano Ry. Co. T. City of TonMto mmd Cam. Pae. Ry. Cou JO Cam. Ry.
Ca*. "
Qrcsnoxs or uv* ^
Ipplifirina for leave to set don m appRcitina for leave to ippi il
to the Svprow Cont OB qpestioBs of law ariBg BpoB *m order of the
Board. aButwiBg of cn<)ciBg$ hy the appficaBtsr liae of railway of B%jh-
ways IB the <tity of Prisce Albert BBOB coBditioB tint the applicant enm-
BtBwate the liBih*B<i i OB the h^hways for diBii|T I if aay* svffercd
hy thna hy reasoB of the kxatioB of the railway aloag the highway:
Held. that, the fwestioai of lav beiBg oae of jorbdietioB. the party 'who
dJipBtrr the jurbdirtioB should apply to a Jdge of the SBBIIBM. Cowrt
for kare to appeal, hot the Board rhnaH aot, BBder its puBiij to BBB-
reaDy oae of jwrisdietiaau AppfieatioB itfrnaed.
Priaee Albert T. CAB. Xorthm Ry. Co. fCaaadiaB Xorthen Street
Priaee Albert , 11 CaB. Ry. Gu.
TO AIT
A Jdge of the SopraBe Cowrt of Canada vffl BO* graat kBT* to appeal
froBi the dedsioB of the Board OB a questioB of jnrudietioB if he has BO
dowht that soch den>aoa was correct. Leave lefmed.
Halifax Board of Trade T. Graad Tnmk Ry. Co. {Halifax Rate* Casei.
12 Cam. Ry. Ca.*. 38.
Jcu^Hcnox QcBsnox or LAV.
A fwettioB of JBrisdktioB BUT ako he a <faes*iaa of lav vhhia the
BWBBJBg of & M of the Railway Act, 19ML aad the Board any fmbmai
for the opiBioB of the Suprrww Court qaraiB* of lav vhich iaTotre the
Butter of the jnrisdictioB of the Board. [Essex TerBuaal Ry. Co. T.
WiMLsor. Essex t Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co, 7 Caa. Ry. Ca*. Ifl9, at p.
124. 40 Caa. S.CJL 20, 8 Caa. Ry. Ca& 1. roDowed.]
HaBultoa T. ToroBto. Haatihoa 4 Buffalo Ry. Co. (Haat^r Street
17 Cma. Ry. Cas.
JcBBBfcnox QTESTJOX OF LAV STATE* CASK.
fader *. 55 of the Railway Act, 190C, the Board BUT, of ito
rjoau state a case ia writiBg for the opiaioa of the Svpreaw Covrt of
Caaada, BBOB a oaestioB of jaTHdktioB whk*. ia the opauoa of the Board,
iaralres a oaestioB of lav. [Essex Terauaal Ry. Co. T. Wiadsor,
596 RAILWAY BOARD.
& Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co., 7 Can. Ry. Gas. 109, at p. 124, 40 Can. S.C.R.
620, 8 Can. Ry. Cas. 1, followed.]
Hamilton v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Ry. Co. (Hunter Street Case),
17 Can. Ry. Cas. 370, 50 Can. S.C.R. 128.
ABOLITION OF GRADE CROSSINGS LIABILITY OF STREET RAILWAY POWEK AS
TO COST.
Where the Board makes a permissive order on the application of a
municipal corporation authorizing the latter to construct viaducts to
carry streets over a railway which is subject to Dominion legislation and
it is left to the municipality to avail itself of the order or not, s. 59 of
the Railway Act, 1900, does not apply, and it is not competent for the
Board to include in its order a direction that a tramway company, whose
line and crossing of the other railway would he affected by the change of
grade, shall contribute (on the ground of the benefit which it would re-
ceive) a certain portion of the expense if the application on which the
tramway company appeared was one solely between the other railway
and the municipality and no relief was claimed against the tramway
company in the notice of motion. [British Columbia - Elec. Ry. Co. v.
Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Ry., etc., Co. and Vancouver, 13 D.L.R.
308, 48 Can. S.C.R. 98, 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 237, reversed.]
British Columbia Elec. Ry. Co. v. Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Ry.,
etc., Co. and Vancouver, 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 287, [1914] A.C. 1067, 19 D.L.R.
91.
[Followed in Thorold v. Grand Trunk et al. Ry. Cos., 24 Can. Ry.
Cas. 21.]
SEPARATION OF GRADES JURISDICTION HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS APPOR-
TIONMENT OF COST CONTRACT AND CIVIL RIGHTS.
A municipality making highway improvements for the convenience of
the public, with the incidental grade separation, should, in addition to
its own portion of the cost of the works, bear the portion of such cost
from which an electric railway operating on the highway was relieved by
the judgment of an appellate Court. In grade separation proceedings the
cost of pavements and sidewalks on highways carried over the railway
should be borne by the municipality unless a permanent pavement already
laid is destroyed by the work ordered by the Board; in that case the cost
of the substituted pavement is added to the cost of such work. The Board
does not pass on matters of contract and civil rights between the parties
concerned in the work of grade separation, but only directs by which
party the works authorized or ordered shall be done, leaving it to that
party to carry out the work properly and without undue expense, and
without interference by the Board except for the purpose of seeing that
its order is properly carried out. [British Columbia Elec. Ry. Co. v.
Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Ry., etc., Co. and Vancouver, [1914]
A.C. 1067, 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 287, considered.]
Vancouver v. Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Ry., etc., Co., 18 Can. Ry.
Cas. 296.
JURISDICTION VALIDITY OF ORDERS PUBLICATION.
Publication in the Canada Gazette is not a condition precedent to the
operation of an order of the Board even as regards general orders affect-
ing the public; s. 31 of the Railway Act, 1906, requires that judicial no-
tice shall be taken of an order published by the Board or by leave of the
Board, but in other cases the order may be proved by a certified copy
RAILWAY BOARD. 591
under s. 69 of the Act. [B. T. CLXJL OK, 18 Can. Or. Gas. 170: Busfcej
T. Cut. Pae. Rj . Co, U OJLR. 1, 5 Can. Ry. Cas- 384, followed.]
Underbill T/Can. Northern Ry. Co, Is'Can. Rj. Cas. 313, 22 D.KR.
279.
MITSICIP.U. MFBOVOIETT GKADCS SETAATIOX.
The jurisdiction of the Board is confined in eases of separation of
grades to the public interest in 90 far as Dominion franchises are con-
cerned and the proper administration of them by Dominion railway com-
panies. It is not the business of the Board to decide an issue of mu-
nicipal expediency, whether or not municipalities should make certain
improvements in cases where the whole cost will be on the municipality.
Winnipeg T. Can. Pae. Ry. Co.. IS Can. Ry. Cas. 317.
JITBISDICTIOX THJSPHOXES UXJCST
The powers conferred on the Board in regard to telephone companies
are not necessarily identical with those conferred in respect of railway
rnmpanin The powers of the Board with regard to the former are jrfprf
and restricted by 7-8 Edw. VII. c. 61, part 1, s. 5. The Board has no
jurisdiction to order the reopening of a telephone pay station,, although
such an application may be justified under the provisions of the Railway
Act against unjust discrimination.
Stoney Point T. Bell Telephone Co. 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 319.
JrwsDicnos AnHoiZATio:\ or COXTBACT EXOIPTTXG FKOM IIABIUTT.
It is within the power of the Board under the provisions of the Rail-
way Act, 1906, to authorize a contract relieving Ac company from lia-
bility to one traveling in charge of lire stock at a reduced fare, for in-
juries caused by the negligence of the company or otherwise.
Grand Trunk" Ry. Co. T. Robinson, 19 Can. Ej. Cas. 1, [1915] A.C. 740.
22 D J~R. 1.
[Robinson T. Grand Trunk Ry. COL, 47 Can. S-CJL 622, 15 Can. Ry. Cas.
2*4* 12 DJJK- 696. reversed.]
JcKsnicmox OPES rtm TRAFFIC TRAXSPORTATIOX TOLLS Coxsrmre-
TTOX PERIOD.