A New Battleground, 1907-11
Author | C. Ian Kyer |
Pages | 103-120 |
Chapter
ANEW BAT T LEG ROUND
preparing its appeal to the Privy Council in the omn ibus
actiontheTorontoRailwayCompanyTRCcancelledthearrangement
relating to the removal of snow and ice, one of the last vestiges of the days of
eectivecompromis eThetermsperm iedeitherparty tobringthear
rangementtoanendonthirt ydayswriennoticesolongasthenoticewas
givenbefore therst dayof NovemberIn OctoberGeneral Manager
Fleming wroteto MayorCoatsworth giving formal noticeof the cancella
tionWhetherthiswasbecause oftheongoinglegalbalesorinr esponseto
thecity councilsipopontheproposedloops onecannotbe sureWhat
is known is that it was not well received by the City.
Now in addition to its Privy Council appeal, the City solicitors began to
put together an application for an order restraining the Company from de
positing ice and snow upon the streets without its perm ission. That applica
tionhoweverwasnotapetitiontoOnta rioscourtsInsteadon January
itwasbroughtto therecentlyc reatedOntarioRai lwayandMunicipal
BoardORM B It would not, however, be heard until the next spring.
The board that heard the application was the brainch ild of James Whitney’s
Conservative government. It was their fond hope that the new board would
alleviatetheconstantcourt balesbetween municipalities andthei rstreet
railways, which often made their way to the politicians at Queen’s Park. It was
thoughtthatanappointedpanelofexpertsactinginaquasijudicialcapacity
could bring expertise, exper ience, and a consistent approach to such issues
AThirtyYearsWar
asthelocationoflinestheseingoffarest helevelsofserviceandthelike
The enabling legislationwaspassedinMayinconjunctionwithanew
OntarioR ailwayAct making it clear that it was primarily the railway juris
diction that motivated the government to create the board. Nevertheless, the
board was given jurisdiction to deal with ot her public utilities as well as a
supervisory review of municipal debt.
Fortheremainingfteenyearsofthetransitfranchi setheORMBwould
play an increasingly important role as arbiter of the disputes between t he
City and the TRC. It consisted of a chairma n, James Leitch, KC, and two
other members Andrew Ingram and Henr y Norman Kison who could
call upon a board secretar y and a railway expert, known as the inspect ing
engineer. Leitch was a practising Cornwall lawyer with municipal govern
ment experience, including several terms as Cornwall’s mayor. Ingram was
a former railway engineer turned politic ian who, when appointed, was sit
tingas theMember ofParliamentforEa stElginhe wouldsoonr esignhis
sea t).Kisona grocerfrom Hamiltonwas asuccessfulbu sinessmanwho
hadchairedHamiltonsBoardofTrade
TheORMBs etupocesinthe LegislativeBui ldingatQueensPark Al
though it was intended to keep these issues out of the trial cour ts, the board
from the beginn ing adopted a courtlike approachIt heard applications
madebyi nterestedparties tookevidencet hroughexamin ationandc ross
examination of witnesse s, and decided cases based on the evidence before it.
OnApri ltheboardhear dtheCitysargu mentsonthe meaningt o
be given to the sections of the orig inal agreement dealing with snow remov
alBot hparties renewed thearg umentsthatthey hadmade in thes
The City contended that the reference to the tak ing away and depositing of
snow was intended to prevent the TRC spreading it on the adjoining por
tions of the road beside its tracks, as the TRC was doing using its electric
sweeper. The Company took the view that these clauses meant that if less
than six inches of snow fell, t he Company was to spread it evenly over the
road to facilitate the sleighs that many people still used to get about in w in
ter. If, however, more than six inches fell and if t he City engineer so directed,
the TRC was to remove the snow and deposit it at a point chosen by the City
engineer.
On April t he board dismissed the Cit ysapplication for an injunc
tionIn explainingtheir decisiontheORMBstressedt hatthemeani ngthe
City was proposing was impractical and unreas onable. They noted that the
principalreason thattheseprovisions hadbeenincludedin theagree
To continue reading
Request your trial