DUFF J.-On the 4th of March, last, I dismissed an application made to me on the first day of the same month for leave to appeal from an order made by the Board of Railway Commissioners, on the 2nd of January, 1912, directing the railway company to remove part of their rock-fill at Cameron Bay, B.C. I gave no reasons in writing for my decision, at the time, but it is now stated that an appeal from the order of the Railway Commission is pending before His Royal Highness the Governor in Council, and that it may be necessary to refer to the grounds upon which the company's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and I have been requested, through the registrar, to state the grounds upon which I acted. I think it is reasonable, in the circumstances, to comply with the request.
An appeal lies to the Supreme Court from the
Board of Railway Commissioners in two cases only, which are provided for by sub-sections 2 and 3 of section 56 of the "Railway Act."
The application in question was made under sub-section 2, and the point to be determined was whether there was any arguable question of jurisdiction which the railway company ought to be permitted to bring before the Supreme
Court.
Cameron Bay is a tidal water in which the public have rights of navigation.
The Board of Railway
Commissioners, in effect, found that the fill in question had been constructed by the railway company in professed exercise of their powers as a railway company, and that the requirements of section 233 of the "Railway Act" had not been complied with.
These facts being found by the Board, the question of jurisdiction of the Board to make the order appeared to be obviously concluded by a reference to section 230 of the "Railway Act," coupled with subsections (h) and (i) of section 30 of the same Act, and I dismissed the application accordingly.
Application refused with co8ts.
Statutes and regulations cited
-
Unresolved citations
- sections 2
- 3
- section 56
- section 2
- section 233
- section 230
- section 30