The Board has no jurisdiction over carriers, so far as traffic is limn iniiiil
under proper application is made to open for traffic under s. 261 (2), of
the Railway Act, 1906. although it may well be that in the public in-
terest some provision should be made in connection with transportation
tolls, even before the railway has passed the construction period. [Baker.
Reynolds * Co. v. Can. Pae. Ry. Co.. 10 Can. Ry. Cas. 151: Randall, et al.
T. Can. Pae. Ry. COL, 17 Can. Ry. Cas. 252: Riverside Lumber Co. T. Can.
Pae. Ry. Co, 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 17, followed.]
Re Edmonton. Dunvegan <k British Columbia Rv. Co., 19 Can. Ry. Cas.
395.
JCBISDICTIOX PBOVTXCIAI.
It is not the function of the Board to decide whether a section of the
Railway Act (8 t 9 Edw. VII. c. 32. s. 5Ai. giving it jnrisdictMiv over a
provincial carrier is ultra vires or not. [Montreal v. Uontreal Street Ry.
Co., [1912] AC. 333, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 541, affirming Montreal Street Ry.
Co- v. Montreal, 43 Can. &.C.R. 197. 11 Can. RT. Cas. 203. referred to.]
Anger et al v. Grand Trunk and Can. Pae. Rv. Cos_ 19 Can. Ry. Cas
401.
598 RAILWAY BOARD.
EXPLOSIVES INITIAL CARRIERS DISCRETION OBLIGATION.
An initial carrier is under no obligation to become a member of the
Bureau of Explosives if it satisfies the Board that a competent inspector
has been appointed and proper arrangements made for the inspection of
shipments of explosives originating on its line. Under s. 317 of the Rail-
way Act, 1006, connecting carriers must accept such shipments of ex-
plosives when presented for transportation and cannot under s. 286 exer-
cise their discretion by declining to accept the shipments.
Can. Northern Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific Ry. Cos.
(Bureau of Explosives Case), 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 220.
JURISDICTION WATER GATE CULVERT.
The Board has no jurisdiction under ss. 26 (2) or 26 (a) of the Rail-
way Act, ]00(i, to make an order directing the respondent to construct a
water gate at the culvert on its right-of-way to protect the applicants
from being flooded.
Trites v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 1.
JURISDICTION STOPOVER PRIVILEGE DISCRETION OF CARRIER.
The Board has no jurisdiction to compel carriers to put in a milling-
in-transit or stopover privilege of a similar character. It is in the dis-
cretion of the carrier to grant it or not. The Board can only intervene
when unjust discrimination or undue preference has been shewn.
Shingle Agency v. Can. Pac., Can. Northern and Great Northern Ry.
Cos., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 9.
REHEARING DOUBT AS TO CORRECTNESS NEW EVIDENCE.
The Board will not reconsider its former decision unless doubt has
arisen in the minds of the Board as to the correctness of the first conclu-
sion by reason of new matter advanced on an application to reopen or
otherwise as to the soundness of the first conclusion, or when new evi-
dence on a material issue can be presented.
American Coal & Coke Co. v. Michigan Central Ry. Co., 21 Can. Ry.
Cas. 15.
JURISDICTION TOLLS DIVISION LAKE AND RAIL.
The Board has no jurisdiction over the tolls charged or the division
demanded by the different steamship companies operating boats on the St.
Lawrence or Great Lakes, except that under s. 333 (3) of the Railway
Act it has jurisdiction over the tolls on the steamships owned, operated
and used by the Canadian Pacific Ry. Co.
Boards of Trade of Montreal and Toronto et al. v. Canadian Freight
Assn., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 77.
JURISDICTION BREACH OF AGREEMENT.
A specific breach of an agreement must be shown to give the Board
jurisdiction under 8 & 9 Edw. VII. c. 32, s. 1.
Hamilton v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Burlington Beach Case), 21 Can.
Ry. Cas. 211.
JURISDICTION RAILWAY BRIDGE BRANCH LINE.
Where a company is authorized by its charter to build a bridge and
lay railway tracks upon it, but has no power to build a railway the Board
RAILWAY BOARD. 59U
has BO jurisdiction to authorize it to build a branch line of railway under
a. 175 of the Railway Act. 1903.
International Bridge Terminal Co. v. Can. Northern Ry. Co^ 21 Can.
Ej. Cas. 218.
Dosuxiox BAH. WAT TAKING LAXD or PEOVTXCIAL. KAH.WAT.
The Board has no jurisdiction, under <. 176 of the Railway Act. 1906,
to order that a Dominion railway company should be authorized to take
and use lands which, at the time of the application for the approval and
of the approval of the location of the Dominion railway, had become the
property of a provincial railway company. [Montreal v. Montreal Street
Ry. Col [1912] A.C. 333, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 541. referred to.] Per Idington
i. (dissenting'. The Board has the same power to make orders respect-
ing the use and occupation of the lands of a provincial railway company
as it has in regard to the lands of any other corporate body created by a
provincial legislature.
Montreal Tramways and Montreal Park Island Ry. Cos. v. Laehine,
Jacques Cartier & Maisonneuve Ry. COL, 18 Can. Ry.'Cas. 122, 30 Can.
S.C.R. 84.
JrasDicnox TELEPHOXE SERVICE FACILITIES.
2 ft 3 Edw. VII. e. 41, s. 2, limits the Board's jurisdiction to direct
the installation of a telephone service but gives the Board no power in
regard to facilities such as it has in the case of railway companies.
[Tinkess v. Bell Telephone Co.. 20 Can. Ry. Cas. 249. at p. 255. followed.]
North Lancaster Exchange v. Bell Telephone Co.. 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 220.
[Followed in Re Anderson and Bell Telephone Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas.
224.]
Jroswcnox ST*rcrrE XEAB TRACKS.
Applications to the Board, under the provisions of general Order No.
65. which provides that ~No structure over four feet high shall hereafter
he placed within six feet from the gauge side of the nearest rail without
first obtaining the approval of the Board." for the purpose of obtaining a
limited clearance, affect a matter connected with the operation of the
railway, and should be made by the railway company concerned and not
bv the individual or industry affected.
' Re General Order No. 65, 1C Can. Ry. Cas. 412.
JURISDICTION RAILWAY ox HIGHWAY MUNICIPAL TSE or HIGHWAY.
In dinminning an application by a railway company to construct a spur
on a highway, the Board ha* no jurisdiction to impose terms on the
municipality concerned as to the use it should make of the highway in
question. The Board's jurisdiction is confined to authorizing the con-
struction and maintenance of the railway on the highway.
Montreal v. Can. Pae. Ry. Co. (Longue Point Spur Case), 21 Can. Ry.
Cas- 224.
JURISDICTION TOLLS REASONABLE EXPERIMENTAL ISDTSTBY DEVELOP-
The jurisdiction of the Board is confined to dealing with the reason-
ableness of tolls, and it is not its function to put in experimental toll-:
with a view to developing industry. [British Columbia News Co. v. Ex-
press Traffic Assn_ 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 176. at p. 178, followed.]
Southern Alberta Hay Growers v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co. (Timothy Seed
Case), 21 Can. Ry. Cas." 226.
GOO RAILWAY BOARD.
JURISDICTION OPERATION OF RAILWAY NOISE MUNICIPAL RY-LAW
SMOKE FROM LOCOMOTIVES.
Unless it can be established that a railway company in carrying on its
undertaking authorized by Parliament upon its own property, in a man-
ner which is calculated to do as little harm to adjacent owners as pos-
sible, is not exercising as much care as it might, to lessen the noise of
operation, the Board has no jurisdiction to interfere. It is not incum-
bent upon the Board to summon offending parties before the Courts of
the Province for violation of its own order and a municipal by-law regu-
lating the emission of smoke from railway locomotives.
Toronto v. Can. Northern Ky. Co. (Don Valley Shunting Case), 21 Can.
Ry. Cas. 452.
JURISDICTION TRAFFIC AGREEMENT CONDITIONS.
The Board has no jurisdiction under s. 364 (3) of the Railway Act,
1906, to dispense with the sanction of the Governor-in-Council required by
s. 364 (2), but can only recommend for such sanction a traffic agreement,
properly brought before it, of which it approves. The "Board has juris-
diction to dispense with conditions as to consent of shareholders, adver-
tising in local papers and other conditions as to procedure in bringing
the matter properly before the Board.
Re Grand Trunk and Quebec, Montreal & Southern Ry. Cos., 23 Can. Ry.
Cas. 101.
JURISDICTION TOLLS WATER BORNE TRAFFIC LOCAL PORTS.
The Board has no jurisdiction to deal with a tariff of tolls for water
borne traffic between local ports, no part of such traffic being attributable
to railway traffic. [Dawson Board of Trade v. White Pass & Yukon Ry.
Co., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 190, distinguished.]
Massett v. Grand Trunk Pacific Steamship Co., 23 Can. Ry. Cas. 121.
DISPUTED ACCOUNTS JURISDICTION REFERENCE.
In a case of dispute between a municipality and a railway company
over the cost of a bridge carrying a highway over a railway, of which
each pays a certain proportion, where owing to the length and intricacy
of the accounts it is impossible for the Board in the exercise of its juris-
diction to decide the questions at issue at an ordinary hearing, the mat-
ter was referred to a Referee under s. 60 of the Railway Act to take the
accounts and report to the Board what amount (if any) is due by one
party to the other, the reference being at the applicant's risk as to costs.
[See North Bay Landowners v. Can. Northern Ry. Co., 23 Can. Ry. Cas.
35.]
Vancouver v. Vancouver, Victoria & Eastern Ry., etc., Co., 23 Can. Ry.
Cas. 123.
JURISDICTION BRIDGE HIGHWAY AND RAILWAY PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC
WAYS.
The Board has only such jurisdiction as is given it by the express terms
of the statute or by the necessary implications therefrom. S. 59 of the
Railway Act, 1906, does not confer jurisdiction on the Board to order a
combined highway and railway bridge. The Board having found upon the
evidence that the respondent built the extensions on either side of a rail
way bridge for the pedestrian use of the public, it was held that the foot-
RAILWAY BOARD. 601
paths so provided were, in fact, public wars and communications. [Duthie
r. Grand Trunk By. Co., 4 Can. By. Cms. 304, at p. 311. followed.]
Victoria and Attorney-General for British Columbia T. Esquimalt A
Xanaimo By. OK, 24 Can. By. Cas. 84.
PUBLIC xnsAscE STOCK PEXS JURISDICTION.
The Board has no jurisdiction, under ss. 26 (2), 284 of the Railway
Act, 1906. or otherwise, to direct the removal, as a public nuisance, of a
stock pen on the railway. [Bennett v. Grand Trunk By. Co., 2 OJJEL
425. 1 Can. Ry. Cas. 451, referred to.]
Bessette v. Can. Pae. By. Co, 24 Can. By. Cas. 113.
AGREEMENT YALIDATIOX JURISDICTIOX Ex POST FACTO ORDERS.
Where a railway company entered into agreements for the purchase of
the assets, stock and franchises of other railway companies, and mihar
quently became insolvent, the Board has no jurisdiction, under s. 361, of
the Railway Act, 1906, to recommend such agreements for validation.
[Niagara. St. Catharines A Toronto Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Mer-
ritton Crossing Case*. 3 Can. Ry. Cas. 263, at p. 267. referred to.]
Re Central Ry. Co. Agreements, 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 117.
LA.XDS OF PBOVIXCIAL RAILWAY POWERS OF DOMIXIOX PARUAMEXT -
JCWSDICTIOX LOCATIOX PLAX.
S. 176 of the Railway Act, 1906, does not authorize the taking of lands
of a provincial railway company; and the settled practice of the Board.
accords with this view. The Dominion Parliament has power, ancillary
to its main legislative power regarding railways, to authorize the tak-
ing of lands of a provincial railway by a Dominion railway company, to
the extent necessary to give effect to the purpose of the Dominion incor-
poration. To the extent necessary to give effect to the purpose of the
Dominion incorporation, the Board has jurisdiction under the Railway
Act to authorize the expropriation by a Dominion railway company of
lands of a provincial railway company, either by an order approving lo-
cation plan under s, 159, or in a proper case, by order, e^r, under s. 178,
in the same manner as lands of individuals, flrmliie, when application
is made under s. 159 of the Railway Act for the approval of a location
plan of a Dominion railway crossing lands of a provincial railway com-
pany. the Board must first determine in eaeh case, whether expropriation
of the required lands of the provincial railway should be authorized, since
the order of approval carries with it the right of expropriation of such
lands within the limits set out in s. 177 of the Act. [Preston A Berlin
Street Ry. Co. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co, 6 Can. Ry. Cas. 142; St. John A
Quebec By. Co. v. Can. Pac. By. Co.. 14 Can. By. Cas. 360; Toronto v.
Bell Telephone Co.. [1905] A.C. 52: Atty. General for British Columbia
T. Can. Pac. By. Co, [1906] A.C. 204, foliowed; Atty. -General for Alberta
T. Atty.-General for Canada, 31 TJ-.R. 32. referred to.]
Laehine. Jacques Cartier. etc.. Ry. Co. v. Montreal Tramways and Mon-
treal Park A Island Ry. Cos, 18 Can. By. Cas. 133.
JURISDICTION SPECIFIC TME PUBLIC ESTEREST.
The Board has no jurisdiction under the Railway Act, 1906, (ss. 30,
268, 27O, 907), to prevent the use by railway companies of any specific
time, unless such use is shewn to be against the comfort, convenience and
safety of the traveling public and railway employees. The Daylight Sav-
002 RAILWAY BOARD.
ing Act, 1918, according to the ordinary canons of construction, remains
in force until repealed.
Re Daylight Saving Act, 1918, 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 199.
ACT OPERATION JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODY DISCRETIONARY
LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION.
Parliament having stated its intention that the operation of the Day-
light Saving Act should not extend beyond the year 1918, it is inadvisable
that the Board should under all the circumstances take any action under
it. The Board is both a judicial and administrative body, its jurisdiction
is largely discretionary and in some instances legislative in its character.
Re Daylight Saving Act, 1918, 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 199.
JURISDICTION DISMISSAL OR DISCIPLINE OF EMPLOYEE INTERNAL MAN-
AGEMENT.
The Board has no jurisdiction to discipline or remove an employee of
a railway or telephone company; the matter is entirely one of internal
management of the company. [Tinkess v. Bell Telephone Co., 20 Can.
Ry. Cas. 249, at pp. 253, 255 : North Lancaster Exchange v. Bell Telephone
Co., 21 Can. Ry. Cas. 220. followed.]
Re Anderson and Bell Telephone Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 224.
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ACCOM MODATION FACILITIES REASONABLENESS.
The Board has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a railway
has provided reasonable accommodation and facilities for traffic as re-
quired by ss. 284, 317 of the Railway Act, 1900. and there being no find-
ing of the Board that the plaintiff had been wrongfully deprived of such
accommodation or facilities he cannot recover in this action. Per Barker,
C.J., McLeod and White, JJ. (Landry and Barry. JJ., dissenting) : [Can.
Northern Ry. Co. v. Robinson, 43 Can. S.C.R. 387, [1911] A.C. 739, distin-
guished.]
Meagher v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 42 N.B.R. 46.
JURISDICTION REASONABLENESS DISCRETION OF CARRIERS DEVELOPMENT
OF BUSINESS FLAT TOLL WEIGHT.
Carriers in their discretion may fix tolls to develop business; the
Board's jurisdiction is concerned only with the reasonableness of tolls.
[Canadian Portland Cement Co. v. Grand Trunk and Bay of Quinte Ry.
Cos., 9 Can. Ry. Cas. 209; Blaugas Co. v. Canadian Freight Assn., 12
Can. Ry. Cas. 303, at p. 304; British Columbia News Co. v. Express Traf-
fic Assn., 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 76, at p. 78; Hudson Bay Mining Co. v. Great
Northern Ry. Co., 16 Can. Ry. Cas. 254, at p. 259; Canadian China Clay
Co. v. Grand Trunk, Can. Pac. and Can. Northern Ry. Cos., 18 Can. Ry.
Cas. 347; Roberts v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 350, followed.]
The Board upholding the principle of charging on the unit of weight, re-
fused to grant a flat toll instead of a toll by weight on shipments of wood
from Algonquin Park, Ontario, to municipalities for distribution among
their citi/ens cost. The Board has no power under s. 341 (a) of the Rail-
way Act, 1906, to extend the carriage of traffic so as to include a practice
not already existing where no question of unjust discrimination arises.
The granting of the tolls provided for by s. 341 is permissive so far aa
the carrier is concerned; the jurisdiction of the Board under that section
is simply amendatory.
Waterloo et al. v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 24 Can. Ry. Cas. 143.
JURISDICTION QUESTION OF LAW PHYSICAL CONNECTIONS.
Under s. 176 of the Railway Act, 1906, the Board as a question of law,
RAILWAY BOARD. :
has BO jurisdiction to authorize a Provincial railway company to take and
oar the lands and tracks of a Dominion railway company, although under
142 Geo. V. e- 22, a. a (3i, amending s. 228, the Board tan make sup-
plemental orders for the safe amd proper transfer of engines and equip-
ment of the provincial railway company by the Dominion railway
company by means of a physical connection. [Preston 4 Berlin Street
Ei. COL'T. Grand Trunk Ky.'Co_ 6 Can. By. Gas. 142; St. John 4 Quebec
By. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co^ 14 Can. By. Cas- 360, followed.]
St. John 4 Quebec By. Co. T. Can. Pac. By. Co., 17 Can. By. Cas. 3-"M.
B. Provincial Board.
PTHJC UTTLTTJES COMMISSION, t^i EBE WOULS FDK GEXCKAL ADTAXTAC.E
or CASADA PROVINCIAL Kti.rLATio\.
When a railway of a company constituted by a Provincial Art is, after
completion, declared by Parliament to be a work for the general advantage
of Canada, it becomes subject to Federal jurisdiction: but if, by a Federal
Act, the company is authorized to purchase and operate another provin-
cial railway which is not declared to be a work for the general advantage
f Canada, it remains subject, as to the hitter, to provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Public Utilities Commission is competent to arbitrate on
disagreements provided for by art. 740 et seq. R-S-Q. 1909. which may
arise respecting the last-mentioned railway between the company and
individuals.
Qnefaee Railway. Light, Heat 4 Power Co. T. Langlais. 21 Qne. K.B. 167.
ONTARIO BOARD JcwsiHcnox MCNICIFAL RAILWAY.
A formal agreement between municipalities which is not of a volun-
tary character but which is executed in conformity with a direction of
the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board as to the operation of a muni-
cipal railway is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the said Board as to
adjustment of differences arising thereunder between the municipalities
in tine accounting for the profits of the operation of the road, and an
action in the High Court will be dismissed.
Waterloo T. Berlin. 7 D.UEL 241, 4 O.W.X. 256.
[Affirmed in Waterloo v. Berlin. 12 D.L.R. 390. 28 OJ^R. 206; distin-
guished in Brant ford v. Grand Valley By. Co., 16 Can. By. Cas. 408, 15
DJLB. 87.]
OXTAMO BOAKD JrwsDicnox POVES TO FEBMIT si ma KAH.WAT TO DE-
VIATE LEVE.
A* tike Toronto 4 York Radial By. Co. is not authorized by legislation
to deviate its line from Yonge street, in the city of Toronto, to a private
right-of-way, the Ontario By. and Municipal Board is without jurisdic-
tion to permit it to do so.
Toronto r. Toronto 4 York Radial By. Co.. 12 D.L.R. 331, 28 O-L.R.
180, 13 Can. Ry. Cas. 277.
[Affirmed in" 17 Can. By. Cas. 346, 15 D.L.R. 270.]
OXTABIO BOAKD CoxsTTnrnox POWERS ASD DITIES Xor A COCBT.
The Ontario Railway and Municipal Board although it has for some
purposes, as part of its powers and duties, judicial functions to perform.
i not a Superior Court within the meaning of s. 96 of the B.X.A. Art.
[Winnipeg Elec. By. Co. T. Winnipeg (1916), 30 D.LJL 139, distin-
guished.]
Be Toronto By. Co. and Toronto, 46 D.LJL 347.
604 RAILWAY BOARD.
ONTARIO BOARD JURISDICTION INHERENT POWERS TAX APPEAL RE-
OPENING OF.
Where the assessment for school purposes of a power company was fixed
on the company's appeal to the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board
on the consent of the company and the municipality in an unorganized
district of Ontario, that Board had no jurisdiction after the passing and
entry of such order, to reopen the appeal on the application of the town
school board and a ratepayer, and to substitute a higher assessment for
its previous order; the efl'ect of subs. 5 of s. 4 of the Ontario Railway
and Municipal Board Act, 6 Edw. VII. c. 31, providing that the Board
shall have all the powers of a Court of record, gave it such jurisdiction
as in inherent in a Court of record but not powers which are conferred on
particular Courts by statute or by rules of Court passed under statutory
authority.
Re Ontario & Minnesota Power Co. and Fort Frances, 19 D.L.R. 429.
RAILWAY COMMITTEE.
See Railway Board.
RAILWAY CROSSINGS.
A. Leave to Cross.
B. Junctions.
C. Protection; Seniorities; Costs.
See Crossings; Farm Crossings; Highway Crossings; Interchange of
Traffic.
Distinction between Crossing and Junction, see Junction.
Crossing railway by overhead bridge, see Bridges.
Annotations.
Power of Board to authorize railway crossings, ft Can. Ry. Cas. 144.
Senior and Junior Rule, Priority of Construction and Apportionment
of Cost. 15 Can. Ry. Cas. 450.
Senior and Junior rule at crossings. 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 188.
Negligence in not giving warning signals at crossings. 19 Can. Ry. Cas.
221.
Costs of installation, operation and maintenance of protection at high-
way crossing. 22 Can. Ry. Cas. 188.
A. Leave to Cross.
PERMISSION OF RAILWAY COMMITTEE APPEAL FROM INJUNCTION COSTS.
The defendant company had obtained from the Railway Committee an
order permitting it to cross the C.P.R. track. Pending an appeal by the
C.P.R. Co. from the order to the full Cabinet, the defendant company pro-
ceeded to lay the crossing and the C.P.R. Co. applied for an injunction:
Held, that defendant company was not exceeding the terms of the order,
which was binding on the Court until reversed on appeal to a competent
authority, and therefore an injunction could not be granted. Before lay-
ing a crossing notice should be given of the time at which it is intended
to commence work. Failure by a company to give such notice constituted
good cause for depriving it of the costs of successfully resisting a motion
for an injunction.
Can. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Vancouver, Westminster Si Yukon Ry. Co., 3 Can.
Ry. Cas. 273, 10 B.C.R. 228.
RAILWAY CROSSINGS. 605
PBOTINCTAL RAILWAY MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES.
The Preston i Berlin Street Ey. Co., operating a provincial railway
under municipal franchises, applied to the Board, under s. 177 of the Bail-
way Act, 1903, for authority to construct two crossings over the Grand
Trunk Ry. Co.'s tracks, or in the alternative for an order direct ing the
Grand Trunk to shift its tracks so as to afford the applicants access to
their freight terminals in the town of Waterloo. It was suggested on
behalf of the town of Waterloo that an order might be made for this pur-
pcse under s. 187: Held (1*. that the application for the crossings must
be refused as not proper in the public interest. (2) And that the Board,
under the Railway Act. 1903. has no authority to compel the Grand Trunk,
* Dominion railway, to shift its tracks for the convenience of the ap-
plicants. a Provincial railway. (3i And that the Board, under s. 137
of the Railway Act. 1903. had not jurisdiction to grant to a Provincial
railway company power to take, use or occupy the lands of a Dominion
railway company.
Preston & Berlin Street Ry. Co. T. Grand Trunk Ry. Co.. 6 Can. Ry.
Cas. 142.
[Followed in St. John Jb Quebec Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co.. 14 Can.
Ry. Cas. 360; St. John & Quebec Ry. Co. v. Can. Pac. Ry. Co., 17 Can. Ry.
Cas. 334: La chine. Jacques Cartier etc- Ry. Co. T. Montreal Tramways
etc., Ry. Cos. 18 Can. Ry. Cas. 133.]
LEVEL CROSSING PROVINCIAL RAILWAY WORK FOR THE GENERAL ADVAN-
TAGE OF CANADA APPROVAL or ROUTE.
The Windsor, Essex etc,, Ry. Co. applied to the Board to rescind or
vary its order for a subway under the tracks of the Michigan Central Ry.
Co. at Essex, and substitute a level crossing. Upon the evidence the
Board reluctantly accepted the recommendation of the chief engineer in
favour of a level crossing. The applicants were originally incorporated
under the provisions of the Ontario Electric Railway Act. R5.O. 1897, e.
209. After obtaining an order for a crossing, their railway and works
were declared by 6 Edw. Vll. c. 184 (D.i to be works for the general ad-
vantage of Canada:- Held, that the route and location plans need not
be approved by the Board under the Railway Act. 1903. before the varia-
tion of the former order for a crossing could be made.
Windsor. Essex & Lake Shore Rapid Ry. Co. v. Michigan Central Ry.