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.