Or 46 more in Toronto than the other three. 81 168 Number of days Number of days sitting for sitting for Civil trials. Criminal trials. 37 44 22 44 33 58 207 192 299, 355 In balance of counties of Or only 111 more days in whole province. And 115 more days in Toronto than Ottawa, London and Hamilton for Civil trials; and 29 more days in Criminal trials. Or 189 more in Carleton, Middlesex, Wentworth, and York. And 992 more in Toronto than Ottawa, London, and Hamilton. And 527 more in Toronto than the whole province, excepting Ottawa, London, and Hamilton. Hamilton-Wentworth Toronto-York ... No. of Suits 1912. 2,545 8,465 Total in Carleton, Middlesex and Wentworth 7,453 .... Or 1,012 more in York than in the other three. 8,465 Or 79 more County Court actions tried in Ontario than in the High Court. And only 129 less in County Court trials in Toronto, than the whole province, including Ottawa, London, and Hamilton. No returns hae been received for 1912, in which year the volume of work was much greater than in 1911. CITY OF TORONTO V. BELL TELEPHONE Co. The Dominion Railway Board, through Commissioner Scott, has given a decision in an application by the city of Toronto to have the Bell Telephone rate of $30 apply to Moore Park and North Toronto. During the course of the argument, which was made before Commissioner Scott and A. S. Goodeve (Commissioner Drayton declining to act on account of his having occupied the position of Corporation Counsel when this question first came before the Railway Board), it was contended for the city that any difference in the rate charged was discrimination, and therefore contrary to law. The telephone company, through its manager, offered the ordinary city rate of $30 to one section which was wholly within the limits and it was impossible for them to do otherwise, but submitted they were entitled to charge, in addition to the regular rate, a mileage rate for the section further north. This would be discrimination against one citizen in favor of another, of $20 up to $80. The judgment of the Board has upheld the telephone company's contention, but by what method of reasoning or following of what precedent. they have arrived at such a decision it is extremely difficult to understand. The Dominion Railway Board, under the chairmanship of the late Judge Mabee, had achieved a position of importance at least the equal of any Court in the country, and its decisions were held in the highest respect, and accepted as the solution of many intricate problems, not only by those in whose favor decisions were given, but also by those, oftenest corporations, to whom the decisions were adverse. Questions such as disputes between municipalities and corporations like the Bell Telephone Co. are of national importance, and require big broad-minded treatment in their solution, and in the minds of most people there is little doubt that if the question came up for adjudication before one of the Appellate Courts or before a Board of Judges, no such decision as that given by the Railway Board, adverse to the interests of the municipality, would ever have been given. The question of the Chairman declining to act, is debatable. If when acting as Corporation Counsel, Mr. Drayton's advice was correct, and if the claim of the municipality is a just one and any difference in the rates charged one citizen in favor of another is undue discrimination, then there appears no valid reason why the change of position from Corporation Counsel to Chairman of the Railway Board would work injury to either party. Many people are asking the question "Is this the time to shirk responsibility?" for there are so many questions coming to the Railway Board for adjustment in which the interests of the municipalities and that of various corporations must of necessity clash that one may well question whether the Chairman will act at all. It would be a pity if the standard set up by the Dominion Board up to the present should be lowered and that it should descend to the level at times reached by its prototype of Ontario. |