A note on terminology

• Author: C. Ian Kyer
• Pages: 21-22

xxi

ANOTEONTERMINOLOGY

Introduction and Epilogue, I use terms like

publicprivatepartnershipprivatesectorpartnerpublictransittransit

providerandCitycouncillorAlloftheseexpressionsareanachronisms

TheywerenotusedinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturiesI

chose to use these modern expressions to br ing home to the reader that these

eventsofacenturyagowerelessdierentthanonemightthink

In telling the story, I generally use the more historically accu rate terms. I

write of City aldermen, as they then were known. I q uote courts that referred

totheCityastheCorporationorusedthefulltermTheCorporationof

theCityofTorontoMostpeopleincludingthepresstalkedofthestreet

railwayandofthefranchisethattheCityhadgrantedtotheCompany

as they referred to the Toronto Railway Company.

TheCityanditstransitproviderweretermedcopartnersbytheOn

tarioRailwayandMunicipalBoardbutthisandotherreferencestopartner

ship are also somewhat misleading. The City and the TRC were not partners

in a legal sense. Their relationship was contractual, and the partners held

each other at arm’s length. They may have been forced to deal with each

other, but they seldom worked together and did not share a common goal.

I should also note that although I talk of the City taking action or city

council making a deci sion, it is wrong to think of that body as speaking with

one voice or being of a single mind — throughout this period (and for most

ofitshistoryitwasafractiousbodyDierentdivisionsviedfordominance