Bell Telephone Co. of Canada v. Canadian National Ry. Co.

J.

THE

CONSUMERS'

GAS

COM-]

PANY OF TORONTO

THE

BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF

CANADA.....................

CANADIAN

NATIONAL

RAILWAY ]

COMPANY, THE CORPORATION |

OF THE CITY OF TORONTO

THE

CORPORATION

OF

THE

TOWNSHIP OF SCARBOROUGH.. J

The answer to these questions as a whole (read in the sense above explained) is, therefore, that there is no rule or principle of law inconsistent with the findings and decisions of the Board to which the questions relate. It may not be improper to add this: There was in my opinion evidence before the Board upon which the findings of fact referred to in the questions could be based, although, as I have said, that is not, as I think, a matter which can be brought before this Court as a question of law under section 52 of the Railway Act. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

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 O 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

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).