Supreme Court of Canada
Bell Telephone Co. of Canada v. Canadian National Ry. Co., [1939] S.C.R. 320
Date: 1939-05-12
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada Appellant;
and
Canadian National Railway Company Respondent.
The Consumers’ Gas Company of Toronto and The Bell Telephone Company of Canada Appellants;
and
Canadian National Railway Company, The Corporation of The City of Toronto and The Corporation of The Township of Scarborough. Respondents.
1939: January 31; 1939: February 1, 2; 1939: May 12.
Present: Duff C.J. and Rinfret, Crocket, Davis and Kerwin JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS FOR CANADA
[Page 321]
APPEALS by leave of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada from two orders of the Board, one dated October 26, 1937, which directed inter alia that the appellant The Bell Telephone Company of Canada be required to remove its poles and equipment from Eighteenth street in the Town of New Toronto, and another order of the Board, dated November 4, 1937, which directed that the appellants in the second appeal remove their respective plants and equipment from Victoria Park avenue as soon as the Canadian National Railway Company would be ready to proceed with the work of constructing the subway authorized by order of said Board, dated June 3, 1937; that the work of removing such plants and equipment be undertaken by the appellants respectively and that the cost of removing and restoring the same be paid by the respective appellants.
The questions involved in these appeals are the same as those contained in the appeal of Canadian National Railway Company v. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada et al., reported supra p. 308; and they have been dealt with in principle in the judgment rendered in that appeal.
P. Beullac K.C. and N.A. Munnoch for the appellant The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
W. B. Milliken K.C. for the appellant The Consumers’ Gas Company of Toronto.
I. C. Rand K.C. for the respondent Canadian National Railway Company.
F. A. A. Campbell K.C. for the respondent The Corporation of the City of Toronto.
H. E. Beckett for the respondent The Corporation of the Township of Scarborough.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by:
The Chief Justice—The questions involved in these appeals are expressed in identical terms, Questions 1, 2 and 4 have been dealt with in principle in the judgment in The Canadian National Railways v. The Bell Telephone Co. and The Montreal Light, Heat & Power Co. (Reported supra p. 308).
[Page 322]
The only substantial question of law involved in these appeals is the question whether the Board “had jurisdiction to order the utility companies named to move their facilities . . . without compensation.” The decision of that question is governed by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in The Bell Telephone Co. v. Canadian National Railway Company.
The appeals should be dismissed with costs.
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant The Bell Telephone Company of Canada: Beullac, Munnoch & Venne.
Solicitors for the appellant The Consumers’ Gas Company of Toronto: Mulock, Milliken, Clark & Redman.
Solicitors for the respondent Canadian National Railways of Canada: I. C. Rand.
Solicitor for the respondent The Corporation of the City of Toronto: C. M. Colquhoun.
Solicitor for the respondent The Corporation of the Township of Scarborough: Hollis E. Beckett.
Email this Content