Canadian Railway Cases Volume 11 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1911 edition. Excerpt: ...the privilege in cash or in any other way they agreed with the municipality, but they could not, in my opinion, adopt a mode of compensation for the concession of the right which they could afterwards invoke to excuse or justify, either directly or indirectly, discrimination. So far as the municipality discriminated against and those using the railway to and from it were concerned the discrimination was not the less unjust because the company chose to adopt this mode of payment for the privilege of laying down their rails in the streets and operating their road. The 315th section of the Railway Act which governs the case was enacted to secure so far as might be possible equality of rates under "substantially similar circumstances and conditions." The 4th sub-section is peremptory, "no toll shall be charged which unjustly discriminates between different localities. ' Does the fact that instead of paying a round sum in cash or otherwise to one locality for the privilege of running its road over certain streets the company for reasons of its own agrees instead to charge a low toll or rate to and from that locality, justify it in refusing to give to an adjoining locality, other conditions being equal, the same rate, and in this way create a discrimination which as between the two localities is unjust. If cash was paid for the privilege could they plead that in justification of the discrimination? If the cost of the building of the road to one locality exceeded that of the cost to another, could such excess in cost be advanced to justify the discrimination and prove it not to be unjust? Are these elements and facts which the Board have to inquire into and weigh when determining what is "unjust discrimination"? If they...