November 16, 1909

RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.

?

Mr. E. A.@

LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is made necessary by the construction put upon section 340 of the Railway Act by the Ontario Court of Appeals in a case decided this last year. That section is the one that provides that the shipper shall not be bound to accept anything less than his ordinary and actual damages unless he signs a contract which must be approved by the Railway Commission. The Court of Appeals said they

could decide whether one contract was like another, and that where they differed in some respects the shipper was bound by the contract he signed notwithstanding it had not received the sanction of the board. In my opinion the law of 1903 was intended to make the jurisdiction of the board absolute as regards these railway contracts and did not intend that any court should exercise that jurisdiction in any respect. I introduce this Bill so that the intention of the Act be made clear and distinct. It also provides that where the railway company insists on a higher rate of freight in order to guarantee against full loss, but wants the shipper to take lower rate and lower _ liability the company must allow the shipper the choice of paying the higher rate of freight and being fully protected against loss if he wants to, and not compel him to accept a reduced liability without any option.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.


Mr. LANCASTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is to limit the appeals from the Board of Railway Commissioners. At present it is very doubtful that any time limits exist. Any party who accepts an order from the Board of Railway Commissioners may appeal against that order to the Supreme Court. Now, I think the House will agree with me at once when I say that orders made by the commission are supposed to be carried into effect immediately ; they are not made unless there is immediate necessity for making them. And, as it has been found that the commissioners feel that they must grant leave for appeal almost at any time and under almost any circumstances, I wish, by this Bill to limit that kind of appeal. The very object of appointing the Railway Commission was to give speedy justice in railway matters, and, where a difficulty arose, to apply the remedy as promptly as possible. The purport of that part of the Bill relating to this matter is that the board should not grant leave to appeal after thirty days from the making of their order. If any party, whether railway company or any other, feels himself aggrieved by an order of the commission and desires to appeal, it is reasonable that he should make up his mind within thirty days and make application for appeal. The second provision of this Bill is that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should not be granted unless some doubtful question of law is involved and unless serious injury or loss will result from immediate compliance with the order sought



to be appealed from. It should not be available for delay only. That, I think, will commend itself to the judgment of the House. The third provision is that no appeal, even though leave be granted,_ should lie if it is not proceeded with within sixty days-that is, within thirty days after leave to appeal is granted, the party should proceed and not have the delay, as they may now, without any time limit whatever. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.


Mr. LANCASTER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 4) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill relates to the subject of level crossings. The legislation of last session, I think will be found, when subjected to more careful scrutiny than was possible in the last days of the session, to be unjust to the extent at least to which I propose to amend it. The Bill of last session provides that a railway, if incorporated after a certain time, must protect the crossings whether upon the level of the highway or otherwise entirely at their own expense. I propose' to amend section 238a, as amended last session, by adding the following : And where the railway has been constructed before the passing of this Act and is permitted by the board to pass over any highway crossing .at rail level, the municipality shall not be ordered to pay any portion of the cost or expense of protecting such crossing unless and except it is otherwise provided by agreement, approved by the board, between the company and the municipal corporation. That, I think, speaks plainly for itself, and it is not necessary for me to take up time or weary the House by explaining it further.


LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).

I have no desire to take up time at this stage. I think it is evident, however, that the proposed amendment is subversive of one of the principles of the Bill passed last session. It clearly makes it impossible for the board to divide the cost among the parties interested. Under the Act as it is now, it is left to the discretion of the board to say whether the municipality shall pay anything or not.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

It leaves it to the discretion of the board,

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON
LIB

George Perry Graham (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM.

This Bill will be subversive of that principle. I am utterly opposed to it, as I understand it.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


CON

RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.

?

Mr. W. B.@

NORTHRUP (East Hastings) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 5) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This is precisely the same Bill that I introduced last year and that passed its first reading, but was among the innocents slaughtered owing to the shortness of the session. Under the existing law, if a contract is entered into between a municipality and a railway, and the railway receives subsidies under the contract but afterwards breaks tlie obligations it enters into under the contract, the corporation of the municipality can apply to the board and obtain relief. But, as the law stands, if the railway which has received the benefit happens to have sold out to another railway, which then has the property and enjoys that benefit, there is no relief to be obtained through the board because the board has no jurisdiction in relation to the matter over the company that did not make the contract. This Bill places it in the power of the board to consider such questions either at the instance of the railway, the Crown, the corporation or an individual.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT-AMENDMENT.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


RACE TRACK GAMBLING.

?

Mr. H. H.@

MILLER (South Grey) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 6) to amend the Criminal Code respecting the matter of race track gambling. He said: The object of the Bill is to amend sections 226, 227 and 235 of the Code with a view to suppressing and preventing, as far as possible,_ not the betting but the 'business of betting and gambling upon race tracks.

Topic:   RACE TRACK GAMBLING.
Permalink

November 16, 1909