BC M6 B 1973 1974 c.3

33 fd An nual Report and

34th Annual Report (consolidated)

mo10R CARRiii[ER commiiiSSiiiOn PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LEGISLATIVE LliRAU

11~1iml11~1~1

~~11~~1~11i1iir1i1i1111~~m11

11 3 3298 00060 0180

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

Thirty-third Annual Report and

Thirty-fourth Annual Report

(Consolidated)

Printed by K. M. MACDONALD, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in right of the Province of British Columbia.

1975

VANCOUVER, B.C., May 2, 1975.

To His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of the Province of British Columbia

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:

SIR: We respectfully transmit herewith the Thirty-third and Thirty-fourth Annual Report, consolidated, pursuant to the provisions of section 35 of the Motor Carrier Act, covering the licence-years ended February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974.

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

P. SABATINO, Chairman

J. BROADBENT, Commissioner

W. FRANKLIN, Commissioner

Annual Report of the Motor Carrier Commission Pursuant to Section 35 of the Motor Carrier Act

(A Consolidated Report for the licence-years ended February 28, 1973, and February 28, 1974)

TRANSITIONAL COMMENTS

The economic regulation of the business of providing transportation services by motor-vehicle for compensation commenced in British Columbia in 1935 and was initially conducted pursuant to Part V of the then Highways Act. In 1939, a special statute of the Motor Carrier Act related solely to the regulation of the motor carrier industry was passed by the Provincial Legislature, and its administration, together with the decision-making powers contained therein, was assigned to the then Public Utilities Commission as constituted under the Public Utilities Act, British Columbia.

At that time the Public Utilities Commission established a Branch for the administration of the Motor Carrier Act, known as the Motor Carrier Branch, with an official, designated the Superintendent of Motor Carriers, as the Commission's chief executive officer in charge of the Branch. The headquarters of the Motor Carrier Branch was established in Vancouver and certain subofficials at other loca­tions in the Province. The Motor Carrier Branch was established for the purpose of the day-to-day administration of the Motor Carrier Act, receiving and investi­gating applications to the Commission under that Act and reporting thereon to the Commission for decision and for the purpose of implementing decisions of the Commission once made.

The Public Utilities Commission was not attached to any particular part of Government. It was, however, required to report annually to the Lieutenant­Governor in Council in respect to its functions under the Motor Carrier Act.

Certain provisions of the Energy A ct passed by the Provincial Legislature in April of 1973 provided for the constitution of an Energy Commission and the abolition, on a date to be fixed by proclamation, of the Public Utilities Commission. At the same time certain other provisions of the Energy Act amended the Motor Carrier Act to provide for the establishment of a Motor Carrier Commission of not more than three persons to perform the functions previously carried out by the Public Utilities Commission in relation to the Motor Carrier Act. The afore­mentioned amendments also placed the Motor Carrier Act and its administrative machinery under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and Communications of the Province.

The actual physical transition in the administration of the Motor Carrier Act took place in July 1974. At that time temporary appointments of two Commis­sioners, pursuant to the amendment of the Act, were made-Martin Taylor as Chairman, and Donald I. Johannessen, of Victoria (also a member of the Energy Commission), as Commissioner. In March 1974 the permanent appointments of three Commissioners were made-P. Sabatino, barrister and solicitor, as Chairman, and Don Johannessen and Joseph Broadbent as Commissioners.

5

6 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

The Motor Carrier Commission as such has, therefore, functioned only since July of 1973. The last formal Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission, pursuant to section 35 of the Motor Carrier Act, which actually has been printed and published is for the year March 1, 1971, to February 28, 1972, the Thirty­second Annual Report.

The statistical and other general information in this report, therefore, embraces the period March 1, 1973, to February 28, 1974. This information is contained in Appendices A (i) and A.

Some of the more important written decisions of the Motor Carrier Commis­sion are reproduced in Appendix B.

GENERAL

The Statement of Revenue obtained from fees chargeable under the Motor Carrier Act, as contained in Appendix A to this Report, together with the other statistical information contained therein, shows a continuing growth in the "for­hire" motor carrier industry over the two licence-years covered by this Report. During the 1972/73 licence-year, approximately 3,184 applications affecting the operation of 9,282 motor-vehicles were filed with the Commission's Motor Carrier Branch. During the 1973/74 licence-year, approximately 3,263 applications affect­ing 11,452 vehicles were filed with the Commission's Motor Carrier Branch. These figures, when compared with previous annual reports, indicate a steady increase in the number of applications requiring consideration and investigation by the staff of the Motor Carrier Branch and final disposition by decision by the Motor Carrier Commission over a period of at least the last 10 years.

AMENDMENTS TO REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE MOTOR CARRIER ACT

During the motor carrier licence-year 1972/73 a number of amendments to the regulations under the Motor Carrier Act were made by Order in Council 1410, approved April 13, 1972. Basically, these amendments provided for a new simpli­fied schedule of motor carrier licence fees, providing for a depreciating scale of fees on a quarterly basis-March to May, June to August, September to November, and December to February. While this simplification resulted in certain of the fees payable for smaller vehicles being increased to some extent by the elimination of the previous monthly depreciation factor, the over-all objective of the change was to achieve administration simplification and not to obtain increased revenue.

In addition to amendments to the schedule of fees as contained in the regula­tions under the Motor Carrier Act and specific regulations relating to the payment of fees for licences and temporary operating authority permits, changes were made in the fees charged for providing transcripts of hearings and copies of documents.

Some minor changes were made in Regulation 4.325 which lists low-valued commodities the transportation of which can be licensed without the carrier being covered by cargo insurance for loss or damage to such items.

In February 1974, Regulations 4.30 and 4.31 were deleted from the regula­tions made under the Motor Carrier Act. These deletions were made in conjunction with the institution of compulsory public liability and property damage insurance coverage as provided for by the Automobile Insurance Act of 1973. At the same time a procedural amendment to Regulation 5.32 concerning the information to be shown on motor carrier licence-plates was made to cover the transition of the

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 7

administration of the Motor Carrier Act from the Public Utilities Commission to the Motor Carrier Commission.

ENFORCEMENT

Inspectors of motor carriers, in addition to the performance of their general investigational duties in connection with some 3,000 applications filed with the Commission's Motor Carrier Branch requesting new or altered licence authorities under the Motor Carrier Act, and the investigation of complaints lodged by shippers or carriers as to the nature and calibre of services being provided by licensees, also continued, when time was available, to work co-operatively with the various enforce­ment agencies of the Province in the investigation of alleged infractions of the pro­visions of the Motor Carrier Act and the regulations under that Act.

Generally speaking, the enforcement of the licensing provisions of the Act is conducted by the various police forces of the Province, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police where they form the Provincial police force. In addition to the efforts of the police forces, the support and assistance of weighmasters in checking for infractions of certain provisions of the Motor Carrier Act at weigh-stations has continued to contribute very significantly to the over-all task of the supervision of the "for hire" trucking industry in the Province.

INSURANCE

In addition to the general provisions of the Provincial legislation requiring vehicles to be insured for public liability and property damage risks, the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act require that motor carrier licensees transporting goods (freight) for compensation take out and maintain cargo insurance coverage with respect to loss or damage to such freight. In addition to the above requirement, all carriers which undertake the handling of freight shipment on a COD (cash on deliv­ery) basis are required to take out and maintain fidelity bond coverage to ensure the remission of COD trust funds, collected on behalf of shippers, to such shippers.

Specific regulations made under the Motor Carrier Act require that the afore­mentioned carriers file with the offices of the Commission's Superintendent of Motor Carriers, and keep in good standing, proof that they have the aforementioned types of insurance coverage in the amounts, and for the risks, required by the regulations under the Act. Failure to maintain such coverage results in automatic suspension of the licence authority of the carrier unless and until appropriate proof of coverage is restored. Should this not be done, the carrier's licence is cancelled in accordance with the appropriate procedures as set out in section 11 of the Motor Carrier Act.

MECHANICAL INSPECTIONS

The principal provisions of legislation in the Province of British Columbia respecting the construction and equipment of motor-vehicles to ensure for safe operation are contained in the Motor-vehicle Act of the Province and apply to all vehicles, whether or not they are engaged in "for hire" operations, and, therefore, require licensing by the Commission pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act.

The regulations under the Motor Carrier Act contain certain supplementary provisions governing the construction of licensed passenger vehicles (buses) which are used to provide service for the transport of the public which are related to the maintenance or the safety and the comfort of the passengers riding on those vehicles. Motor Carrier Inspectors on the staff of the Motor Carrier Branch monitor the

8 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

equipment operated by licensed passenger carriers with a view to the maintenance of requisite standards. Where an inspection reveals a manifest mechanical condi­tion of a vehicle which makes it unsafe pursuant to the requirements of any statute, an Inspector of Motor Carriers has the authority to, and does, require the immediate removal of that vehicle from service until such defects are rectified and proof of such rectification is shown. During the licence-year under review in this Report, the mechanical condition of vehicles inspected was, in the majority of cases, found to be satisfactory. Where, in certain cases, the mechanical or structural condition of a vehicle was found to be unsatisfactory through such inspections, prompt rectification of the condition was insisted upon and obtained.

TIME SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

Licensed motor carriers, be they transporting freight or passengers, are re­quired pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act to file with the Commission schedules of the rates which they charge for their transportation services, to maintain such sched­ules when accepted for filing by the Commission, and not to vary them, once accepted, without the consent of the Commission. In addition to these rate sched­ules, carriers operating under the authority of certain classifications of licences are required to file schedules showing times of departure and arrival from various termini on their routes, to maintain those schedules once accepted for filing, and not to vary them without first obtaining the consent of the Commission. Following upon these requirements, the Commission and its Motor Carrier Branch is required to deal with, and make decisions on, substantial numbers of formal applications for the filing of rate schedules and the amendment of existing rate schedules. Many motor carriers, particularly those conducting smaller operations with limited re­sources, have in the past, and do now, require considerable assistance in the preparation of tariff or contract submissions from the staff of the Commission's Motor Carrier Branch, which is engaged in the investigation, processing, and report­ing on to the Commission of rates matters. The same situation holds true, but with a lesser volume, to the filing and consideration of time schedules and the routes over which the carriers required to file time schedules operate. In the table set out below is a comparison of the number of rate and time schedule matters requiring the attention of the Commission's staff during the years 1965-74.

Number of Rate Schedule and Time Schedule Applications Submitted to Public Utilities Commission or Motor Carrier Branch During Each Licence-year Ended in Month of February.

1974 I 1973 I 1972 I 1971 11970 I 1969 I 1968 I 1967 I 1966 I 1965

~~:-==~~:==:=:::::::==:::::::::\ 223

l 216

l 179 I 191 I 199

I 179

I 81

I 89

I 75

I 82

46 41 36 51 48 50 37 38 35 42

The figures shown in the schedule above are indicative of the continuing increase in the volume of matters in the rate and schedule fields which require the attention of the Commission and the Commission's staff in the administration of the Motor Carrier Act over the years since 1965. Some of the most significant and time-consuming work required for the administration of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and regulations thereunder relating to rate matters are involved in investigation by the Commission staff and consideration by the Commission of

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 9

requests by carriers for increases in their established tariff rates. In proposing changes to those tariffs, carrier applicants are required by the Commission to submit adequate justification to support the changes proposed by their applications. These submissions in the majority of cases require detailed analysis and the compiling of comprehensive reports by the Commission's Motor Carrier Branch for the consid­eration of the Commission. In view of the fact that the motor carrier industry has been operating since 1965, and even prior to that time, in an inflationary economy where the costs of operation are equally subject to the inflationary trend, the Com­mission and its staff have been faced each year with a steady volume of applications for adjustments supported by submissions that such adjustments were not only re­quired but were urgently required. In view of the increasing volumes of work and staff limitations during the period under review in this Report, it has not, in many cases, been possible for the Commission and its staff to deal with such applications to a finalization as expeditiously as might be thought desirable.

10 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A (i)

NUMBER OF LICENCES-ANNUAL COMPARISONS

The following table by years gives the number of licences for the various classes issued:

Number of Licences, New and Renewed1 Kind of Licence

1966/67 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73

Passenger buses2 _____________________________________ --------------------------------- 999 985 1,124 1,092 Passenger (taxis)--------------------------------------------- __________________ ______ _ 1,094 Public freight---------------------------- --------------------------- 7,385 Limited freight -------------------------- ------------------------------- 1,898

Totals ____ _ 11,376

1 Excluding transfers and licences issued for replacement vehicles. 2 Includes sedan cars licensed as public passenger vehicles.

TEMPORARY PERMITS

1,199 1,265 1,364 9,290 10,336 11,735 1,929 1,909 2,125

13,403 14,634 16,316

In order to provide flexibility, Part 10 of the regulations pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act provides for the issuing of temporary permits in lieu of or as an adjunct to carriers' licences.

The following is a summary of the number of temporary permits issued during the year 1972/73:

Class II permits (for temporary operation as a public or limited vehicle for periods not exceeding 92 days)------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4,03 3

Class III permits (for operation of a licensed public or limited vehicle tempo-1 rarily in a manner other than is authorized by the licence, or pending consideration of an application for licence, renewal, alteration, or transfer 8,034 of licence, etc.) f

Class IV permits (for substitute vehicle when licensed vehicle is disabled) Special temporary permits (issued for the transportation of household goods to

carriers from provinces having reciprocity agreements with the Province of British Columbia respecting commercial motor-vehicle licences) ______________ 1,219

REVENUE-ANNUAL COMPARISONS

The following is a comparative table by years of gross revenue:

Kind of Licence 1966/67 1970/71

$ $ Passenger (buses) ___ 43,791.25 47,964.25 Passenger (taxis) ___________ ------------------- 23,199.75 26,800.00 Public and limited freight.__ ___ 317,482.81 412,910.40 Permits ___________________

-- ------------- 11,359.05 14,193.10 Miscellaneous1 ___________________________ ------------------ 12,428.80 11,542.25

Totals ______ 408,261.66 513,410.00

1971/72 1972173

$ $ 51,635.75 51,384.50 26,954.00 28,324.50

441,869.03 494,336.76 23,263.17 17,554.27 14,179.73 12,097.46

557,901.68 603,697.49

1 Includes fees for transfers and alterations of licences and for copies of conditions of licences and transcripts.

SUMMARY OF TOTAL REVENUE FOR THE LICENCE-YEAR 1972/73

Licence fees -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Temporary permits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Miscellaneous ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

$ 574,045.76

17,554.27 12,097.46

Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 603,697.49

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 11

APPENDIX A (ii)

NUMBER OF LICENCES-ANNUAL COMPARISONS

The following table by years gives the number of licences for the various classes issued:

Number of Licences, New and Renewedl Kind of Licence

1970/71 1971/72 1972/73 1973/74

Passenger buses2 _____________________________ -------------------------------------- 985 1,199 9,290 1,929

Passenger (taxis) Public freight ________ _ Limited freight ____________ _

Totals ____________ _ 13,403

1 Excluding transfers and licences issued for replacement vehicles. 2 Includes sedan cars licensed as public passenger vehicles.

TEMPORARY PERMITS

1,124 1,092 1,270 1,265 1,364 1,908

10,336 11,735 14,288 1,909 2,125 2,353

14,634 16,316 19,819

In order to provide flexibility, Part 10 of the regulations pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act provides for the issuing of temporary permits in lieu of or as an adjunct to carriers' licences.

The following is a summary of the number of temporary permits issued during the year 1973/74:

Class II permits (for temporary operation as a public or limited vehicle for periods not exceeding 92 days) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4,467

Class III permits (for operation of a licensed public or limited vehicle tempo­rarily in a manner other than is authorized by the licence, or pending consideration of an application for licence, renewal, alteration, or trans-fer of licence, etc.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18,316

Class IV permits (for substitute vehicle when licensed vehicle is disabled) Special temporary permits (issued for the transportation of household goods to

carriers from provinces having reciprocity agreements with the Province of British Columbia respecting commercial motor-vehicle licences)

REVENUE-ANNUAL COMPARISONS

The following is a comparative table by years of gross revenue:

1970/71 1971172 1972/73 1973174

$ $ $ $ Passenger (buses) _____________________________________ ------------------ 47,964.25 51,635.75 51,384.50 60, 782.00 Passenger (taxis)--------------------------------------------- 26,800.00 26,954.00 28,384.50 34,278.50 Public and limited freight___________________________________________ 412,910.40 441,869.03 494,336.76 564,211.20 Permits___________________________________________________________ 14,193.10 23,263.17 17,554.27 22,537.24 Miscellaneoust ___________________ ----------------------------------- __ 1_1,'-5_42_._25 _ _,___1_4-'-,1_7_9_.7_3__, __ 1_2,'-09_7_.46 _ __,__1_2-'-,8_6_9_.9_3_

Totals ____ --------------------------------------------------------- 513,410.00 557,901.68 603,697.49 694,678.87

1 Includes fees for transfers and alterations of licences and for copies of conditions of licences and transcripts.

SUMMARY OF TOTAL REVENUE FOR THE LICENCE-YEAR 1973/74 $

Licence fees ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 9 ,2 71. 70 Temporary permits ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22,537.24 Miscellaneous --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12,869.93

Totals --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 694,678.87

12 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

APPENDIX B

SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT WRITTEN DECISIONS OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, and the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto and Regulations Thereunder, and in the Matter of an Application by Kenneth Douglas, Pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act, for Alteration of Licence Authority.

Before M. R. Taylor, Chairman, and~ MONDAY THE 29TH DAY D. I. Johannessen, Commissioner S OF OCTOBER 1973

ORDER

Upon the application of Kenneth Douglas, of 1688-llth Avenue, in the City of Prince George, for alteration of his licence authority under the Motor Carrier Act coming on for hearing this day at the City of Prince George, pursuant to Notice of Hearing dated the 5th day of October 1973 in the presence of Grant C. Hughes, counsel for the said applicant, and Bruce M. Preston, counsel for 97 Transfer Ltd., Star Equipment Co. Ltd., Lomack Contracting Ltd., and R. A. Ewen Transfer Ltd., all being licensed motor carriers having filed Notice of Objection to the said application; and upon hearing the evidence adduced by the said parties and what was said by counsel on their behalf:

It is ordered that upon the applicant, Kenneth Douglas, complying with all the requirements hereinafter set forth within the time limit therefor, the licence now held by the said applicant under the Motor Carrier Act be amended by reclassifying the same under Class III and by substituting the following for the scope of authority granted:

"Transportation of machinery and equipment used in logging operations, construction and operation of sawmills and mines or construction of roads and bridges, and general construction machinery and equipment, (Charter Trips) for one individual or company only at any one time, from points within Licence District 16 to any point in British Columbia, or vice versa."

and that the said licence as so amended be made subject to the condition, duly endorsed thereon, that the said licence shall be personal to the said Kenneth Douglas and that neither the said licence, nor any part of the authority thereby granted, shall be assigned or transferred to any other person, or to any corporation, unless this order shall first have been varied by the Commission:

It is further ordered that the applicant pay to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers the sum of $500 to be applied toward the costs of the Commission of these proceedings:

And it is further ordered the requirements with which the said applicant, Kenneth Douglas, must comply in order that his licence be amended as hereinbefore provided are that on or before the 3rd day of January 1974, he shall have duly obtained cargo insurance, filed with the Motor Carrier Branch a tariff acceptable to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers, and fulfilled all other requirements imposed by the Motor Carrier Act and regulations made thereunder on the holder of a Class Ill licence and that on or before the said date he shall also have paid to the Superin-tendent of Motor Carriers the aforesaid sum of $500 by way of costs: ·

And it is further ordered that the Superintendent of Motor Carriers, and other officers of the Motor Carrier Branch duly authorized in that behalf, be at liberty to issue to the said appli­cant, Kenneth Douglas, such temporary permit as may appear to them warranted conferring temporary authority, no broader than that authorized by this order, such temporary permit to expire no later than the 3rd day of January 1974, and to be terminable at any earlier date by order of the Commission:

And it is further ordered that security for costs posted by the objecting carriers in the amount of $50 each do be forthwith refunded to them, or their solicitors, and that security for costs in the amount of $50 deposited by the applicant be applied in reduction of the sum of $500 hereby ordered to be paid by him as costs.

BY THE COMMISSION M. R. TAYLOR, Chairman

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 13

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, and the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto and Regulations Thereunder, and in the Matter of an Application by Kenneth Douglas, Pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act, for Alteration of Licence Authority

Before M. R. Taylor, Chairman, and} MoNDAY THE 29TH DAY D. I. Johannessen, Commissioner OF OCTOBER 1973

ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION

THE CHAIRMAN: We, the Commission, have made the following findings: Firstly, we find that there is clear evidence of demand for the service which the appli­

cant wishes to offer and that it is a service which is significantly safer, more efficient and less costly, than that which is being offered by other carriers in the area.

Secondly, we find that the applicant is a fit person to render such service, in the sense that he is experienced and capable and clearly has shown dedication to the service of the public and the raising of the standards of the industry by adopting a new approach to the carriage of equipment which would meet the changing needs of the trade in this area.

Thirdly, we find that the applicant desires and intends, and should be able, to offer service on a permanent basis in this area.

Fourthly, we find that economic conditions in the transportation industry in this area of the Province would be improved if the competitive impetus resulting from the availability of the applicant's service were authorized, and that its effect on other available transportation services would in no way be detrimental to the public interest.

In normal circumstances, we would have had no hesitation in granting the applicant licence authority, enabling him to compete on equal terms with those now offering to transport equip­ment from and within this area.

Our concern is the factor which Mr. Preston has very properly submitted as the one consideration which reflects very gravely indeed on the applicant's fitness. We refer to his willingness to operate in the past in the most flagrant disregard of the Act and, in effect, to place himself above the law for the reason that he did not agree with the manner in which the law was being administered. We do not excuse this conduct, we do not overlook it, and we propose to recommend to the proper authorities that conduct of this type in future be the subject of far more vigorous action by those charged with enforcement of the Act than has been the practice in the past.

Yet we must be concerned lest desire to see the law enforced should result in a decision being made by us which would adversely affect the shipping public, for whose prime benefit the law exists and the Motor Carrier Act must be administered. We are mindful of the words, which are used by Mr. Kahn in his work on the Regulation of Motor Carriers-an American work, but it is the only text which we have to guide us-when he says (at page 97), citing American authorities:

"There is no inflexible rule for determining fitness. Unauthorized past operations are not necessarily a bar to granting authority. The carrier renders himself liable to prosecution for his past unlawful operations. If he is punished, it does not follow that the public also, in effect, be punished by being deprived of a needed service."

In this case, the applicant has been charged, convicted, and punished, and if he has not been adequately dealt with for the many infractions which he has admitted, that is the fault of the authorities and not of the shipping public, and the shipping public, in our view, ought not now to be punished by being deprived of the undoubted benefit of the services which Mr. Douglas desires to offer.

Now we do not feel that the granting of a series of contract authorities is a realistic method of dealing with this matter. We are mindful of the view which has been expressed by Mr. Preston that an authority wider than that covering specific contracts might have been objected

14 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

to by existing carriers who have not appeared before us. Yet we feel, balancing all the interests, that whatever hardship might be caused to such carriers by our proceeding on the amended application is outweighed by the hardship which would be done to Mr. Douglas and to the shipping public by requiring him to submit to investigation and further hearing in respect of every effort which he might make to increase his business beyond that contemplated by the three contracts which are before us. We are not prepared, however, to grant any authority under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of Canada; these proceedings having been solely under the Provincial Motor Carrier Act, an extension of their scope to the Federal field appears to us improper, and any application for extra-provincial authority would therefore have to be the subject of further application which would be considered on its merits.

Our decision is that the existing licence authority of Mr. Douglas be extended, so as to provide for the items 1 (a), (b), and (c) of the amended application, that is to say:

"Transportation of machinery and equipment used in logging operations, construction or operation of sawmills and mines or for construction of roads and bridges, general construction machinery and equipment, charter trips, for one individual or company only, at any one time, from points in licensed district 16 to any point in British Columbia, or vice versa."

In making this order, we also direct that the licence be made subject to the condition that it is a personal licence to Mr. Douglas and that it may not be assigned by him to any other person; we make that condition in accepting the submissions which have been made to us that he is singularly capable of operating the special equipment which he desires to operate. We do not wish to see this licence transferred to any other person.

And we further direct that the amendment of licence authority, take effect only in the event that Mr. Douglas, within 60 days, fulfil these following preconditions:

Firstly, that he file a tariff acceptable to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers:

Secondly, that he file cargo insurance and in all other respects comply with the requirement of the Motor Carrier Act and the regulations:

Thirdly, that he pay to the office of the Superintendent of Motor Carriers the sum of $500 toward the cost of these hearings.

With respect to the deposit for costs which was made by the objecting carriers, we order that these deposits be forthwith refunded to them, and with respect to the sum of $50 deposited by the applicant, we direct that it be retained in reducion of the costs ordered to be paid by this order.

Finally, the Commission wishes to express its gratitude to counsel for their assistance and for their very helpful co-operation in disposing expeditiously of this matter. We wish also to thank all the witnesses for the assistance which they have given to us in gaining a broader understanding of the problems of their industry in this area and of its regulation.

MR. J OHANNESSON: I concur in these findings.

THE CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, I think that concludes the hearing. Thank you.

PROVINCE OF BRITISH CoLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of the Motor Vehicle Trans­port Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of an Application by Buster's Auto Towing Service Ltd.

Before M. R. Taylor, Chairman } FRIDAY THE 25TH DAY and J. S. Broadbent, Commissioner OF JANUARY 1974

ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION

THE CHAIRMAN: Well, gentlemen we have reached our decision on this matter, and we see no reason to delay, and in giving it to you we do not believe it necessary to go through in detail the evidence which has been presented to us.

We have, however, been impressed with this fact, that the evidence of inadequate service on the part of the existing licensed operators has not been convincing to us. We feel that in

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 15

order for such evidence to be convincing there should be given actual dates on which requests for service were made and could not be met, or could only be met at unreasonable delay, in order that the existing carriers may confirm or deny that; and in this case we feel that the evi­dence has been very general and has been inadequate to establish a case that the existing carriers are failing to serve the public.

And therefore we have come to the conclusion that the public interest which is in issue here is the public interest in ensuring that there will be available to the general public a choice of a number of different carriers who are willing to perform the service. We feel that that public interest is jeopardized if a further operator with a substantial base were to come in at this particular point in the mobile home moving field. And we are, accordingly, not prepared, on the evidence which we have heard, to grant to the applicant the right to enter this field in which it has to date not had any authority. And in that respect we deny the application.

In doing so we would like to add that this is not in any way to foreclose the possibility of the applicant applying again at a time when it could, if such evidence exists, adduce evidence of specific failures on the part of the licensed carriers to respond to the public's request for service, or failure to provide service within a reasonable time of the request.

Now in regard to the movement of trailers other than mobile homes, that is to say con­struction trailers in the broader sense in which they should today properly be defined, and to move other modular buildings of the nature of schools and hospitals-we are told, but I find it difficult to believe, that there are at this moment hospitals in modular form-but other pub­lic buildings, we feel that the applicant's application should be granted. That is to say, that the applicant should be granted authority to take construction buildings of every description, construction-site buildings of every description, not only within the Province but also for the purpose of extra-provincial movement, and that it should also have the authority to take other types of modular buildings and mobile buildings, excepting only mobile homes, and that it should have the right to do so within the Province and also for the purpose of extra-provincial movement.

When I say within the Province I am meaning from the City of Vancouver and 15 road miles from the boundaries of the City of Vancouver.

That is our decision. We will see that it is rendered to you in writing in due course. It will be subject to all the usual requirements that the evidence must be presented to the Super­intendent, of compliance with all the regulations concerning insurance, cargo insurance, COD bonding, and the filing of appropriate tariffs, wherever those things are required by the regula­tions, and upon that evidence being produced, the authorities will be granted. We place no restriction on the number of licences which may be granted, that is to say, the number of vehicles that may be licensed. Recognizing that this is an area in which the regulatory system requires to be very seriously reviewed, we do not feel it proper that in regard only to this appli­cant such a restriction should be applied, and others should not have to face it.

Well, that is our decision. If there are any questions as to what it means, we would be glad to answer them.

MR. BARTLETT: Could we possibly actually define construction-type unit? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. My colleague wishes to emphasize that we would not exclude

mobile residential buildings that are being transported to a construction site as part of a con­struction camp. We would not exclude those, we would include those within the authority, so that anything that is being taken to a construction site for the purpose of a construction camp would be included in the authority that would be granted to this applicant.

I am sorry, I overlooked one other thing-that we would also grant the applicant's request to move mobile homes in respect to mobile homes that are being repossessed by a bailiff licensed under the law of this Province. We feel that this is a service that requires instant attention and that it is in the public interest inasmuch as the parties who have loaned money on this security should be protected, they should have an extra possibility of immediate service available to them in that field.

Is there anything else. Oh yes, costs-the security for costs will be returned to all the parties that filed it. I think that is everything.

MR. GILL: When we are talking about bailiffs, mobile homes, this is entering into the same situation we have-

TuE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gill, we do not wish to argue about our decision. We are faced with the obligation of making it, and we do not wish to discuss it, but we will answer any ques­tion as to its meaning, or anything of that character.

MR. GILL: The only thing that I am stipulating is that, or asking, I could be ruled out of order here, but a mobile home, the same thing Mr. Barlett was talking about policing. Now, who is to say whether this mobile home is en route from a bailiff, to a construction site or where it is going? And this is the exact thing we are entered into now.

16 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

THE CHAIRMAN: Well then, that is a good point, Mr. Gill, and we will require as part of the order that the mobile home must not only be being moved by a licensed bailiff, but there must be in the possession of the driver a warrant authorizing the repossession of that vehicle. Does that create problems?

MR. HuivIE: I was wondering if a copy of a warrant would be sufficient? THE CHAIRMAN: A copy of a warrant, meaning a warrant as customarily used by

licensed bailiffs, not a warrant of the Court. MR. HUME: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. McGAw: We are to understand, Mr. Chairman, that the towing of mobile homes for

a bailiff, or any construction mobile will be granted? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, and no other. MR. PERSALL: Even a mobile home going onto a construction site? THE CHAIRMAN: If it is part of the construction camp, yes. Mr. Broadbent indicates his concurrence with that decision. I think that is everything.

Thank you very much.

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of an Appli­cation by Buster's Auto Towing Service Ltd.

Before M. R. Taylor, Chairman, and}FRIDAY THE 25TH DAY J. S. Broadbent, Commissioner OF JANUARY 1974

ORDER

Upon the application of Buster's Auto Towing Service Ltd. being heard the 18th and 25th days of January 1974, in the presence of Gavin Hume, counsel for the said applicant, and J. W. McGaw, representing Ken Mac Trailer Towing Ltd., Norman Gill, representing A-1 Trailer Towing Ltd., Carl Persall, representing Carper's Mobile Transport, and Blake W. Bartlett, representing National Trailer Convoy, of Canada, Ltd., all being licensed carriers appearing as objectors to the said application; and upon hearing the evidence adduced by the said parties and what was said by their Counsel and representatives respectively:

It is ordered that the existing licence authority of the applicant, Buster's Auto Towing Service Ltd., be amended by adding thereto authority to tow mobile buildings and modular buildings, except as hereinafter provided, for one individual or company only at any one time from points within the City of Vancouver and 15 road miles from the boundaries thereof delivered to any point in British Columbia, or vice versa, or from points within the City of Vancouver and 15 road miles thereof transported to the British Columbia-Alberta border while engaged in an extra-provincial undertaking, or vice versa:

And it is ordered that the expressions "mobile buildings" and "modular buildings" (as used herein) exclude all forms of mobile homes or modular homes, except only the following­(a) Housing units being transported to a construction site for use as part of, or in conjunction with, a construction camp facility; and (b) mobile homes or modular homes being transported under Warrant of Seizure on the instructions of a bailiff duly licensed under the Debt Collection Act of British Columbia, provided that a true copy of such Warrant of Seizure is carried on the towing vehicle and is produced on demand to any peace officer or any person authorized by the Commission as defined in section 64 (1) of the Motor Carrier Act:

And it is ordered that the amendment of licence authority hereby authorized shall take effect only in the event that the applicant within three months of the date of this order shall have filed with the Superintendent of Motor Carriers evidence of cargo insurance and a tariff accept­able to the Superintendent, and in all other respects have satisfied the appropriate requirements of the regulations:

And it is ordered that all security deposits posted by the applicant and the objectors named in connection with this application be forthwith refunded to the respective party or its solicitor.

BY THE COMMISSION M. R. TAYLOR, Chairman

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 17

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, and the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of the Motor Vehicle Trans­port Act, S.C. 1954, Chap. 59, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of an Appli· cation by P. Dickson Trucking Ltd., Pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act for Alteration of Licence; and in the Matter of an Application on Behalf of Certain Motor Carriers to Re-open Proceedings for the Suspension or Cancellation of Licences Held by P. Dickson Trucking Ltd., Pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act.

Before M. R. Taylor, Chairman and} MONDAY THE 26TH DAY D. I. Johannessen, Commissioner OF NOVEMBER 1973

REASONS FOR DECISION

More than 18 months ago Mrs. Maureen Dickson, on behalf of her company, P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. (hereafter called "the Dickson company"), approached the motor carrier licensing authorities with a view to securing extension of the company's extra-provincial contract licence authority between the Vancouver area and Alberta so as to include quite extensive additional contract haulage business, most of which was already being handled by it without such authority; the proposed application thereafter went through a series of reconsiderations, revisions, and extensions, with accompanying delays, due at least in part to hesitation on Mrs. Dickson's part, until it became an application for general freight authority and had attracted both the vigorous opposition of 11 of the 12 existing general freight carriers on the route concerned and also an application on their behalf to have the Dickson company's existing contract haulage authority revoked for the violation of the law involved in the company's extensive unauthorized haulage operations.

When the matter came before the Public Utilities Commission on June 27 of this year that body, being aware that it would shortly hand over this regulatory function to a new tribunal, recorded certain admissions of illegal hauling made by the Dickson company, ordered that it cease and desist from illegal operations, directed that its application for extended authority be proceeded with, and stood the matter over to be dealt with by this Commission. Having come into being at the end of July, we embarked on August 22 on a hearing both of the licence cancellation application (referred to as "the Show Cause proceedings") and of the application for extended authority; the hearing was three times interrupted by commitments of the Com­mission and of Counsel; it took up a total of 13 hearing days during which evidence of some 30 witnesses was heard and 130 exhibits were filed. During the course of the hearing the national rail strike created an urgent demand for all trucking equipment available in the Province and in view of this emergency we authorized issuance to the Dickson company of unrestricted temporary permits permitting it to carry freight in full truckload shipments between the Van­couver area and the Alberta border without prejudice to the disposition of the applications before us; this temporary authority remains in effect to the present date.

Upon resumption of the hearings this month we were informed that a controlling interest in the Dickson company had been assumed by a new management group; during September Mrs. Dickson had relinquished control of the company to Gary W. Mcintosh and John C. Shaw, both of whom have extensive experience in the trucking and freight forwarding business in Western Canada, retaining herself only a 331h-per-cent minority shareholding in the company.

We have been impressed during the course of the hearings with the very real problems which the regulatory system imposes on would-be entrants, or carriers with limited authority seeking to increase their business, particularly those resulting from the so-called "regulatory lag" which inevitably occurs between the time when applications for authority are made and decisions can be rendered on them. We feel that the interests of justice would not be served by the further delay which would be involved if we were to make a complete review of the extensive evidence presented, and that we ought to proceed immediately to make our findings. Should appeal be taken to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, we anticipate that there will be an opportunity for us to prepare the customary precis of the proceedings, and should appeal be taken to the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court of Canada, there will, of course, be readily available to the parties a full transcript of the evidence and argument before us.

18 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

(a) The "Show Cause" Proceedings In respect of the "Show Cause" proceedings, those initiated by established general freight

carriers on the Vancouver to Alberta route who seek to have the existing limited contract haulage authority of the Dickson company cancelled or suspended, we make the following findings:

(1) We find that P. Dickson Trucking Ltd., under the management of Mrs. Maureen Dickson, for approximately three years from its incorporation until the "Cease and Desist" Order of the Public Utilities Commission, engaged in the carriage of substantial quantities of freight between British Columbia and Alberta without appropriate authority under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of Canada, and that during much of this time the major part of the Company's revenue was derived from such unauthorized haulage activity:

(2) We find that the Dickson company was by no means alone in conducting unauthor­ized trucking operations in British Columbia, but that such illegal haulage has been widespread and has been encouraged by longstanding laxity in enforcement of Provincial and Federal statutes governing motor carrier regulation within British Columbia:

(3) We find that the Dickson company made substantial efforts to legitimize its illegal operations by seeking appropriate extension of its authority, but was faced with real and substantial obstacles by virtue of certain rules applied by the Provincial Motor Carrier Branch which rules require that only one application by any one carrier be processed at a time and that any contract authority appli­cation which would involve a carrier becoming licensed for more than a "limited number" of shippers be treated as an application for general licence authority, and thus generally subject to a public hearing;

( 4) We find that Mrs. Dickson feared a public hearing, and had good cause to fear such a hearing, having in mind the delay, cost, and inconvenience to the company and its customers, which such hearing clearly must involve, and has involved, and having in mind the virtual inevitability that it would be vigorously opposed at such a hearing by very powerful competitors established on the Vancouver­Alberta route:

(5) We find that there is substantial and uncontradicted evidence, which we accept, that the Dickson company has at all times given a high level of service to the shipping public and that interruption in its operations would cause substantial inconvenience to members of the shipping public for whom the company is licensed to haul:

(6) We find that the Dickson company refrained from illegal hauling upon the making of the June 27, 1973, Cease and Desist Order of the Public Utilities Commission, and that it has conscientiously complied with that order during the five months which have since elapsed:

(7) We find that there is no evidence that those now controlling the Dickson company have participated in or condoned the Dickson company's illegal hauling opera­tions, nor is there any evidence to suggest that they have been responsible for any other illegal haulage, or to anticipate that they would ever permit the Dick­son company to engage in unauthorized operations in the future.

It has been eloquently urged upon us by Mr. Macdonald, on behalf of the 12 carriers who initiated the Show Cause proceedings, that failure on our part to take action by way of suspen­sion or cancellation against the Dickson company would be understood by the motor carrier industry as an indication that illegal operation is not seriously regarded by those charged with administration of the motor carrier statutes and that such failure on our part would inevitably have a demoralizing effect on those employed by the companies which have instituted the proceedings, would comfort those who engage in such illegal operations, and would be an encouragement to others who might be tempted to commence similar activities; we have given most anxious consideration to these submissions.

In considering our authority in this connection, we have had regard to the provisions of the Federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act (the illegal transportation involved having been almost entirely of an interprovincial nature) and to the fact that no express power to suspend or revoke, but only a power to issue a licence is given under that Act. It is urged on us, however, that the Act gives a power to revoke or suspend by implication, since the discretion to issue a licence is expressed to be subject to the same terms and conditions which we would be empowered to apply if the applicant were operating solely within the Province; a licence issued to a Pro­vincial carrier would necessarily be subject to suspension or cancellation by us by virtue of section 11 of the Provincial Motor Carrier Act. The Motor Vehicle Transport Act provides,

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 19

however (by section 6), for substantial penalties, and to these the Dickson company would be liable whatever action we might take. We have recently stated in the Kenneth Douglas case, referred to by Mr. Macdonald, that we cannot condone, and do not overlook the deliberate dis­regard of the motor carrier statutes which appears to have become prevalent in this Province, and that we would urge on the proper authorities that far more vigorous action be taken in future to enforce the law in this area. We are not prepared, however, to permit this concern on our part to result in action being taken by us which should properly have been taken long ago by those responsible for prosecuting persons guilty of breaches of the statutes. We are of the view that any powers of suspension or revokation possessed by this Commission ought primarily to be used to terminate lawbreaking on the part of those subject to its jurisdiction who are before it. We are doubtful that such powers should be used for purely punitive or exemplary purposes, purposes more appropriate to a Criminal Court than to a regulatory tribunal, particularly when the conduct complained of has long ceased, when we have no reason to fear that it will ever be resumed, and when the result would chiefly be to impose a burden on a new management which bears no blame for the wrongdoing and to inconvenience the shipping public. We do not believe that such results would in the present case in any way serve the public interest.

If there are, as has been urged upon us, those who will draw from this decision on our part the inference that this Commission has sanctioned the disregard of the motor carrier statutes, we believe that this will result, not from a knowledge of our decision, but from ignorance of the reasons for it; we are satisfied that we ought not to be influenced in carrying out our duties by any concern of that nature. We refer to Mr. Justice Rand's caution that ours is a society in which security must primarily be achieved through enlightenment.

(b) The Application for Extended Authority

In respect of the application of the Dickson company for general freight authority to Alberta, as defined in its revised application, we make the following findings:

Firstly, we find that the Dickson company, under its present management, is fit, able, and willing to perform the proposed service and should offer a high standard of service to the public; we would not have been able to so find had the manage­ment of the company been that which prevailed at the time of the many viola­tions of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act to which we have already referred, and nothing contained in this decision should be taken to imply that carriers who have a history of contravention of law can expect that this will be overlooked in a determination of their fitness to serve the public on an application for authority under the statutes:

Secondly, we find that the granting of the authority sought, while it must inevitably reduce the profitability of some existing general freight carriers licensed to serve this route below that which they would otherwise enjoy, ought not of itself to render the operations of any such carrier uneconomic so as to reduce available service:

Thirdly, we find, particularly having in mind (a) the degree of adherence of the existing licensed carriers to a common tariff, ( b) the fact that no new general freight licence to serve the route hase been granted for at least 10 years, and (c) the very substantial increase in traffic which has occurred during that period, and is likely to continue to occur, that the admission of the Dickson company could indeed enhance the competitive quality of the service rendered to the public, and thereby promote good economic conditions within the industry, and also could have a beneficial effect on the standard of service, and reasonableness of charges made for such service, to the general public.

But these findings would not appear to justify the granting of the authority sought if the tests proposed on behalf of the established carriers were to be adopted by us. It is in the determina­tion of the appropriate criteria that we have found our task in this case most difficult, and we therefore feel it proper that we should state clearly how we have resolved that issue so that we may be set right if we should have erred either in our understanding of the extent of the dis­cretion given to us by the statutes or of the principles which ought, as a matter of public policy, to be applied in the proper exercise of such discretion.

The positions taken by witnesses called on behalf of the established carriers appeared to be that investment in facilities made by licensed carriers should receive protection in the exer­cise by the regulatory authority of their jurisdiction over entry of new competitors on the same route, that no such new competitor should be licensed unless it is able to satisfy the

20 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

regulatory authority that existing licensed carriers have refused to move available freight at "compensatory rates." We were repeatedly told that the route here in question is already served by at least as many general freight carriers as any other route in Canada and that this shows that more than adequate competition exists to serve the public need. It was urged on us that the rates charged by the protestant carriers, almost all of which follow, with minor exceptions, a common tariff known as WTA 100, must be just and reasonable, since these rates have not resulted in unreasonable return and represent a concensus of participating carriers as to the rate level which will recover average cost and a fair level of profit. It was suggested that contract carriers, such as the Dickson company, which have hauled truckload freight at rates sometimes below the WTA 100 level, errode the essential "base load" or "back haul" business of the general freight "common carriers," and represent a threat to the economic viability of such carriers, to their ability to assure consistent service to the shipping public and to the level of rates at which they are able to carry less than truckload freight.

Mr. Macdonald, in summarizing the position of the established carriers, described the test to be applied by asserting that the applicant must meet an onus of proving both "immediate and pressing need" for its services and also that there had been inadequate service offered to the public by existing licensed carriers. He did not suggest that the existing carriers had been put to such test; indeed it was acknowledged that the majority of them had obtained entry to the route by purchasing existing companies, often largely inactive, or in a state of insolvency, which happened to hold the necessary licence authority. (It was, indeed, suggested that most of the present licences can trace their origin to a period following the Winner decision of the Privy Council when extra-provincial motor carrier licences were granted "over the counter" without any investigation.) Mr. Macdonald asserted that the fact that no new general freight licence authority had been sought for almost 15 years on the Vancouver to Alberta route was evidence that over-licensing has existed throughout this period, and that no further carriers are in fact required on the route.

It is a curious aspect of the regulatory system with which we are concerned that the prin­ciples on which it is to be operated are neither apparent from the two statutes concerned, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act and the Motor Carrier Act, nor have they been laid down in recorded decisions rendered by the Courts, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, or our pre­decessor Commission during the 43 years which have elapsed since motor carrier regulation was introduced in this Province by the Highway Act of 1930. We have found ourselves at this late date obliged to seek the purpose which may properly be ascribed to the legislation and the manner in which that purpose can be achieved through the process of granting, refusal, and withdrawal of licence authority. The task has been rendered a particularly difficult one in the context of this case because we are dealing here not with a service rendered to the public by a single quasi utility operation but, so far as the business of freight hauling between the Van­couver area and Alberta is concerned, with a market in which 12 general freight "common carriers" and dozens of "contract carriers" are offering some or all of the same or, in some re­spects, similar services. The single issue before us is whether one of these carriers should be permitted to enlarge the scope of its operation from that of carrying freight for a limited num­ber of named shippers to carrying freight generally for any member of the public, and, if so, whether it should be limited to carrying freight in single full truckload lots for one shipper at a time, or should be allowed to carry freight of several shippers on the same journey.

We thought it right to examine the two statutes in the light of any relevant principles of law existing before their enactment, having in mind that we ought not to construe them as in­tending to abrogate such principles, and the rights which flowed from them, except to the ex­tent that this is done expressly, by clear language, and that in the exercise of the discretion given to us by the statutes, we ought, if possible, to have regard to those pre-existing principles and rights recognized by the common law.

We find that prior to the enactment of these statutes there was a well-established common law right of carriers, in common with all other tradesmen, to exercise their trade freely, a right which is said to have its origin in Magna Carta itself and to be one of the fundamental liberties of the subject under our system of law. With this right is closely related a policy of the law which, at least since the Ipswich Tailors case (1614) the Statute of Monopolies (1623) and the Bill of Rights (1689), has firmly opposed trading privileges and restraints on freedom of competition which have tended toward establishment of monopolies. We are of the view that we ought not to construe the statutes with which we are concerned as intended to encroach on the fundamental freedom to trade any further than is clearly apparent from their words; in particular, we are of the view that we ought not to assume, without compelling words to that effect that the purpose of the licensing authority established by them is to assure the protection of licence holders against competition, or to give them any right of profitable operation in pri­ority to others desiring to engage in the same business. An examination of the provisions of

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 21

the Motor Carrier Act, particularly sections 7 (2), 19, 20, 25 (1), and 37 (1) reveals an in­tention that we be guided, in granting, withholding or revoking licences, and in generally regu­lating the motor carrier industry, by the interests of the public, particularly the shipping pub­lic, but nothing which must lead us to conclude that we are obliged, or indeed entitled, to exercise our jurisdiction with a view to protecting existing licensed carriers, by assuring them profitable operation through excluding new entrants, or in any other manner. If any existing licensed carrier, or class of carrier, gains any benefit under the Act, it appears to us that it should only be such benefit as results incidentally and necessarily from the discharge of a duty on our part to protect the interests of the general public, and particularly the shipping public, which we construe alone to constitute the purpose of the regulatory scheme.

Applying that view to the facts of the present case, we are obliged largely to reject the tests proposed by the objecting carriers and instead to ask ourselves whether it can justifiably be said, in the light of the evidence which we have heard, that the introduction of the applicant company could reasonably be expected to adversely affect the interest of the shipping public in having an assurance of efficient service at just and reasonable rates on the obviously busy, expanding, and important trucking route between the Vancouver area and Alberta. Whatever the effect may be on the profitability of one or another of the 12 large concerns now licensed on that route, we cannot conclude that there is any danger that admission of a new general carrier could cause a deterioration in the standard of service to the general public; indeed we feel compelled to the view that such a new competitor, having the experienced and resourceful management which the Dickson company now enjoys, together with obviously well-satisfied shipper support, could well contribute significantly to the service offered by the industry to the public.

It has been suggested that the erosion of "back haul" business enjoyed by existing carriers would be detrimental to their "front haul" capability, and that permitting carriers, such as the Dickson company, under its existing authority, to haul truckload freight which constitutes the "base load" of common carriers without the responsibility of hauling the wide variety of con­signments offered in less than truckload lots is also injurious to the service which the common carrier industry is able to offer. It seems to us, however, that these objections could only have relevance when an applicant is seeking a selective or limited haulage authority and cannot be raised against a trucker who seeks authority to offer general freight service, in which he must inevitably have the same interest as other general carriers in establishing a balance of loads in both directions, and in which he would incur the same obligation as his competitors so far as carriage of less than truckload freight is concerned.

We are concerned, however, that the Dickson company, having operated in the past as a truckload carrier, inevitably is not in a position as yet to offer the terminal facilities and pickup and delivery capability essential to an operator offering a full general freight service; this is, of course, to be expected and must be taken into account in our disposition of the application.

(c) Conclusion and Order

Our conclusion is that the Dickson company ought to have the opportunity to offer the service for which it seeks authority. Its success or failure in fulfilling the obligations which it wishes to assume could, in our view, prove to be of considerable assistance in determining an appropriate regulatory policy with respect to this important trucking route, as regards both the licensing of general freight carriers and contract carriers authorized to serve particular shippers or to ship particular classes of freight, and also with respect to the reasonableness of the rate structure which now generally prevails among carriers servicing the route. We would not propose the licensing of further general freight carriers on this route until the impact of this new entrant on the service offered to the shipping public can be assessed and we are of the view that considerable caution should be exercised in the meantime in the licensing of new "con­tract" carriers seeking authority to move only selected types of freight which fall within the classes of commodities customarily moved by the general freight "common carriers."

Our order with respect to the application before us is as follows: (1) We dismiss the proceedings initiated by Alltrans Express Ltd., Canadian Freight­

ways Ltd., Millar & Brown Ltd., Central Dispatch Ltd., Pe Ben Industries Com­pany Ltd., Reimer Express Lines Ltd., B-Line Express, Kingsway Freightlines' Ltd., Soo Security Motorways Ltd., Porter Trucking Ltd., C.P. Transport, and Mexi-Canada Reefer Services Ltd., wherein P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. was re­quired to show cause why its existing licence authority should not be cancelled or suspended; in so doing we would add that we regard the bringing of these proceedings as having been entirely justified by the circumstances prevailing at the time of their initiation:

22 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

(2) We direct that the present temporary permits issued to P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. which authorize the transportation of full truckload freight on the Vancouver­Alberta route, be continued in force for a period of six months from this date:

(3) We direct that P. Dickson Trucking Ltd., pay to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers the amount of $1,250 toward the costs incurred by the Commission in procuring transcription services for these proceedings, and that the sum of $50 deposited by the company as security for costs be applied in reduction of that amount; we regard this as a fair disposition of the costs of the Commission, having in mind the extent to which past illegal operation by the company added to the length of the hearings:

( 4) We direct that the existing licence of P. Dickson Trucking Ltd., be amended in accordance with its revised application forthwith upon the company within six months from this date

(a) obtaining appropriate cargo insurance and COD bonding and comply­ing with all other appropriate requirements of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act and the Motor Carrier Act, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Motor Carriers;

( b) establishing to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Motor Carriers that it has secured the use of terminal space, pickup, and delivery equipment and all other facilities reasonably required for the efficient operation of the ser­vices for which authority is sought by its application; and

(c) paying to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers the amount of costs hereby ordered to be paid by it:

(5) We further direct that the licence hereby authorized to be granted shall be sub­ject to the condition that the same shall not be assigned by P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. without consent of this Commission, nor shall there be any change in the controlling shareholding or management of P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. without the consent of the Commission, and that the said licence shall become void forth­with upon any such assignment or change in control or management taking place without such prior consent having been granted:

(6) We direct that security for costs deposited on behalf of other parties to these proceedings be refunded to them or to their solicitor.

We wish to express the gratitude of the Commission for many very helpful proposals for im­provement of motor carrier regulations in the Province which were advanced by the parties during the hearing and for very valuable guidance, based on a long association with the law and practice in this field, which was extended to us by R. W. Macdonald.

BY THE COMMISSION

M. R. TAYLOR, Chairman

D. I. JOHANNESSEN, Commissioner

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M14, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of Applications by Wholesale Delivery Service (1972) Ltd., Mission City Freight Lines (1967) Ltd., and Bill Lynch Trucking Ltd.

Before M. R. Taylor, Chairman, and} THURSDAY THE 17TH DAY D. I. Johannessen, Commissioner OF JANUARY 1974

ORDER

Upon the applications of Wholesale Delivery Service (1972) Ltd., Mission City Freight Lines (1967) Ltd., and Bill Lynch Trucking Ltd., being heard by the Commission the 16th and 17th days of January 1973, in the presence of W. E. Ireland, Counsel for Wholesale Delivery

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 23

Service ( 1972) Ltd., and R. W. Macdonald, Counsel for Mission City Freight Lines (1967) Ltd., and J. L. Barrett, Counsel for Bill Lynch Trucking Ltd.; and upon hearing the evidence adduced by the parties aforesaid and what was said by their counsel:

It is ordered, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, that licence authorities held by the Applicant Wholesale Delivery Service (1972) Ltd. be amended by deleting therefrom restrictions numbered "1" and "2" placing limitations on the nature and weight of shipments authorized to be transported over scheduled routes 2 and 5, inclusive:

And it is ordered, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, that the licence authorities held by the applicant, Mission City Freight Lines (1967) Ltd., be amended by deleting the present restrictions on the scheduled service thereby authorized and substituting the following:

"Westbound: No freight to be picked up after leaving the Municipality of Pitt Meadows; Eastbound: No freight to be delivered until reaching the Municipality of Pitt Meadows; no local service involving pickup and delivery of freight shall be rendered between and including Vancouver and Coquitlam;"

and that the said licence authority be further amended by adding to the terminus definition the following:

"Mission City Terminus shall comprise the Municipality of Mission;" and that the said licence authority be further amended by adding the following:

"General freight, for any individual or company, within the area compnsmg the Municipalities of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, and Mission, and also from points situated within this area delivered to points situated within 25 road miles there­from (excluding points on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands and Sechelt Peninsula)."

And it is ordered, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth, that the licence authorities held by Bill Lynch Trucking Ltd., be amended by reclassifying the same as Class I Public Freight Vehicle Licences and by adding thereto the following:

(1) Operations on a regular schedule between Haney and Vancouver via Highway 7, 7 and 7A, or 7 and 1, terminal point Vancouver to include the City of Vancouver and all points within 15 miles thereof, and terminal point Haney to include all points within the Municipality of Maple Ridge; and

(2) Operations on a nonscheduled basis carrying general freight for one individual or company at any one time (charter trips) from points within the Municipality of Maple Ridge delivered to points within 50 road miles from the boundaries thereof or vice versa:

And it is ordered that all the said amendments of licence authorities shall in each case take effect only in the event that respective applicant, within three months of the date of this order, shall have filed with the Superintendent of Motor Carriers, wherever applicable under the regulations, evidence of cargo insurance, COD bonding and tariff acceptable to the Superin­tendent, and in all other respects have satisfied the appropriate requirements of the regulations and shall also have indicated to the Superintendent its consent to the following condition:

And it is ordered that the condition upon which the aforesaid amendments of licence authorities are in each case granted is that neither the licence authorities as so amended, nor any part thereof, shall be assigned without leave of this Commission, nor shall any part of the benefit of the said licences as so amended be assigned without such leave having been granted, nor shall there be any change of ownership of shares in the respective applicant company affect­ing control of the respective applicant company without such leave having been granted, and that the said licence authorities shall become absolutely void forthwith upon any breach of this condition:

And it is ordered that all security for costs deposited by each of the said applicants, as applicant or as objector, shall be forthwith returned to the respective applicant or its solicitor.

BY THE COMMISSION

M. R. TAYLOR, Commission

24 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMDIA

MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION

In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, the Energy Act, S.B.C. 1973, Chap. 29, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of the Motor Vehicle Trans­port Act, R.S.C. 1970, Chap. Ml4, and Amendments Thereto; and in the Matter of an Application by R.T.I., Incorporated, for Authority to Transport Seafood Between the International Border and Vancouver.

Before M. R. Taylor,}WEDNESDAY THE 6TH DAY Chairman OF FEBRUARY 1974

REASONS FOR DECISION

The applicant, R.T.I., Incorporated, a United States carrier based in Los Angeles, has been engaged for the last five years solely in the transportation of fresh and frozen seafood on the United States West Coast, chiefly between Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles via the Oregon Coast.

In June of last year the Company applied to this Commission for authority under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of Canada to extend its operations into Canada for the purpose of transporting seafood from Vancouver to Seattle and points south and returning to Vancouver with British Columbia seafood stored in the United States and United States seafood imports. Upon representations having been made to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers that existing licensed carriers were unable or unwilling to provide adequate service to United States destina­tions for the movement of this important and highly perishable British Columbia export com­modity, particularly in less than truckload consignments, the Superintendent issued three tempo­rary permits to the applicant under which it has transported seafood between Vancouver and United States West Coast points for the last five months pending an adjudication on its appli­cation for permanent authority.

The application was heard by us on January 14 and 15, 1974, and the hearing then ad­journed until today in order that the applicant might call in rebuttal its principal, Robert K. Davies, who has been in hospital. The application was opposed by one licensed carrier, Zenith Transport Ltd., which holds authority to carry a wide range of commodities, including produce and fish, between Vancouver and the United States.

Evidence was given on behalf of the applicant initially by Joseph Kennedy, of Watson­ville, Calif., who has responsibility for its dispatching and public relations functions. Mr. Kennedy stated that his company has been operating, under its temporary permit authority, a regular Friday service from Vancouver to Los Angeles, with assured delivery Monday morning to consignees in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and also has made other trips as warranted by demand. He said that presently licensed carriers serving the route apparently have not been interested in carrying seafood in less-than-truckload consignments. Mr. Kennedy said that his company has trucks in Bellingham, Wash., 50 miles south of Vancouver, at least twice weekly, and would come to Vancouver whenever consignments of 5,000 pounds or greater are available here for southbound movement. He estimated that about one-half of the com­pany's northbound movements into Vancouver have been empty.

The applicant called two shipper witnesses. The first, Daniel R. McMillan, of J. S. McMillan Fisheries Ltd., said that his company favoured the applicant because it had proved willing to commit itself to a once-weekly service for less-than-truckload consignments, while other companies were reluctant to give advance assurance of delivery days in Los Angeles. Paul Pine!, of Canadian Fishing Company Ltd., said that his firm had found the applicant preferable to other carriers because it delivered in Los Angeles on the day of arrival and made trucks available "at any time." He said that the applicant was the "preferred carrier" of his company's Los Angeles customers, who are charged with the cost of shipment, and that the applicant makes trucks available at any time when required as well as for its regular less-than­truckload service on Fridays. Mr. Pinel said that the applicant's rates are generally slightly higher than those of other carriers.

Evidence for the objecting carrier, Zenith Transport Ltd., was given by its Managing Director, Donald Crowe-Swords, who testified that the company is Canadian-owned, is licensed to operate between Vancouver and United States points and carries a substantial volume of produce northbound from California to Vancouver. It is equipped with twin-trailer units par­ticularly suited to transportation of fresh and frozen fish, which forms the principal available southbound commodity during the peak produce season, Mr. Crowe-Swords testified. He

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 25

emphasized the importance of balancing northbound produce traffic with southbound loads, the difficulties which face Canadian carriers in obtaining southbound consignments in view of the prohibition on foreign carriers picking up freight within the United States for delivery in the United States, and the availability of Canadian-owned equipment to carry all seafood traffic consigned from Vancouver to the United States. Mr. Crowe-Swords stated unequivocally that presently licensed carriers would, if they had been asked, have promptly transported all freight which has been carried by R.T.I. under its temporary permits, and specifically assured us that his company stands ready, willing, and able to provide fresh and frozen seafood service from Vancouver to United States West Coast points in every respect as good, or better, than that which has been provided by the applicant. He emphasized the advantages which would accrue to the shipping public should this backhaul business be made available to carriers, such as his company, which are engaged in hauling California produce to British Columbia.

Mr. Crowe-Swords mentioned United States legislation which, he said, prohibits Canadian carriers from picking up freight in the United States for delivery in the United States and places very real difficulties in the way of Canadian carriers operating between Vancouver and California who seek to compete with United States carriers in the movement of less-than­truckload freight. Such Canadian carriers have no opportunity, after leaving Vancouver, to pick up any further pay load, while United States carriers, such as the applicant, can add to their British Columbia load freight picked up at any United States point along the 1,300 miles between the border and Los Angeles. He said that Canadian carriers will not be able to sur­vive economically on the Vancouver-California route if faced with unrestricted competition from United States carriers. He testified that three Canadian-based carriers and six United States-based carriers are licensed to carry produce and fish on the route in question.

Upon the resumption of the hearing today, Mr. Davies, the principal of the applicant company, was called and the applicant was for the first time represented by counsel Gavin Hume. It became apparent that the hearing could not be concluded before the departure of J. S. Broadbent, the Commissioner who had heard the first two days of evidence with me; in view of the impending appointment of a new chairman, and to avoid the necessity of a rehearing, the full Commission was convened and on order made pursuant to section 37 (2) (aa) of the Motor Carrier Act delegating to the Chairman alone all the powers and duties of the Commission in regard to the conclusion of the hearing and the rendering of the decision of the Commission in this case, and the hearing was concluded before me alone. No objection was taken by the parties to the adoption of this course by the Commission.

The evidence of Mr. Davies was much taken-up with the freight in fact carried to and from British Columbia by the applicant during the five-month period for which it has been operating under temporary permits, and in this regard a schedule (Exhibit 6) was produced by Mr. Davies listing all such consignments carried by it during this period; the schedule revealed that 98 shipments were moved, aggregating 1,950,398 pounds. Under cross-examination by R. W. Macdonald, on behalf of the objecting carrier, it became apparent that only one consignment of fresh fish had been carried from Vancouver to California, the balance of the southbound freight consisting of frozen seafood, that several of the consignments listed, although moved for British Columbia shippers, were moved wholly within the United States and did not cross the border, that 1,560,000 pounds of the 1,950,398-pound total was moved in full truckload lots, and that of the 390,000 pounds moved in less-than-truckload consignments only one half, that is to say, less than 200,000 pounds, had in fact been moved from Vancouver to California. Canadian Fishing Company, one of the supporting carriers, had consigned three full-truckload shipments by the applicant's vehicles during this period, all being frozen fish, and no less-than­truckload freight, and J. S. McMillan, the other shipper called for the applicant, had moved eight consignments by the applicant, only one involving shipment of fresh fish from Vancouver.

Mr. Davies, a frank and very fair witness, described his company's northbound haul as "infinitesimal," agreed that the southbound fresh-fish movement is highly seasonal, this account­ing for the fact that only one shipment had been moved by his company during the five-month period under temporary permits, and stated that fish consignees in the United States have freezer equipment into which frozen consignments are delivered, so that urgency of delivery, and firm delivery times, are not prime considerations in relation to the movement of frozen seafoods in the same sense as they are in the case of fresh fish. He asserted that the opportunity to move full-truckload consignments and to carry year-round frozen-fish traffic is necessary if the company is to have an economic foundation on which to justify a Vancouver-based oper­ation which could support the guaranteed regular weekly service to California for fresh fish in less-than-truckload consignments during the ground-fishing season which constituted the prin­cipal and unique feature of his company's application for licence authority in British Columbia.

In its recent decision in the P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. case, the Commission referred to the almost complete lack of guidance, by way of legislative direction or recorded decisions, as to

26 MOTOR CARRIER ACT

basic principles which should be applied in the granting or refusing of licence authority to those seeking to enter the trucking business in this Province, or to extend their operations here. The present case gives rise to two important issues which are not directly dealt with by the Com­mission in that decision; firstly, the question of whether a United States carrier desiring to enter the motor-freight business in British Columbia should be subjected to any different test than that applied in the case of a domestic carrier; and secondly, whether it is proper that one class of shipper, in this case shippers of seafood, should be denied the right to use a chosen carrier in the interest of promoting, or protecting, the "backhaul" business of existing licensed carriers engaged in the "forward" movement of freight for a different class of shipper on the same route.

As to the first issue, that concerning the licensing of United States-based carriers to operate into Canada, it would appear that for the last 20 years, since the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 10 provincially appointed tribunals have each been left to apply their own conception of an appropriate policy for Canada concerning this important aspect of the practical commercial relations between our country and the United States. Sitting as a Federal agency, and being obliged in the absence of guidance by way of precedent or stated Government policy to form our own opinion on the matter, it appears to us that a narrowly nationalistic approach in this field would in no way serve the Canadian public interest. To exclude United States carriers simply in order to promote the business of Canadian carriers, given the inevita­bility of retaliatory reaction on the part of the United States regulatory authorities, surely could only result in reduction, and perhaps eventual suspension, of through motor carrier service generally across the International Border, to the ultimate detriment of the public in both countries. It cannot therefore, in our view, be a valid objection to an application of a United States-based carrier for licence authority simply to say that the granting of such authority would result in diversion of business which otherwise would be available to Canadian carriers, or in the "exportation of payroll" or in the loss of Canadian tax revenues. Nor, it seems to us, can it be objected that United States carriers should be excluded because they have an unfair advantage by virtue of any rule which forbids Canadian carriers from picking up freight in the United States for delivery in the United States, having in mind that a similar prohibition on transporta­tion of freight between points within the Province is customarily applied as a condition of motor carrier licences granted United States-based carriers operating into and out of British Columbia. On the other hand, it does appear to us a proper and legitimate regulatory concern that the number of United States-based carriers authorized to operate into any part of Canada should not exceed a level consistent with the preservation of some significant Canadian involvement in the total highway freight movement across the border. In this sense we would not, therefore, view an application by a United States carrier in precisely the same light as an application by a Canadian carrier, nor can it be said, in our view, that the position of a United States carrier seeking to operate in Canada ought in law to be equated with that of a Canadian-based carrier, having in mind that the common law rights enjoyed by the latter, which are referred to in the P. Dickson Trucking Ltd. decision, cannot be said historically to have had any application in relation to a foreign national seeking entry to the country for the purpose of carrying on his trade or business here.

With respect to the second issue mentioned, the propriety of denying the wishes of one class of shipper in order to protect the "backhaul" or load-balance of carriers moving freight for a different class of shipper, it appears to us that this must properly form an important part of the function of the Commission if the regulatory system is to render a useful service to the shipping public as a whole. It appears axiomatic that load imbalance will be reflected either in reduced frequency of service or increased rates charged to the public, and that this is the type of wasteful excess which the legislature must have intended should be guarded against by imposing a regulatory discipline on what is intended to remain essentially a competitive indus­try. It appears to us that the Commission ought not to approve what is, in effect, a one-way freight movement, unless no reasonable opportunity exists for incorporating the commodity in question in a potentially balanced operation, or some special compensating public interest is served.

Applying these principles in the present case, we are bound to ask; firstly, whether there has been shown to be an inadequacy of available service for the commodity in question on the Vancouver-California route such as would warrant the introduction of a further United States­based carrier despite the obvious predominance of United States-based carriers at present on that route; and, secondly, whether there is any special public interest which would justify the introduction of such a carrier for the purpose of moving what is, for practical purposes, a one­way southbound freight movement of principally full-truckload frozen freight, when the evidence indicates a substantial existing southbound load deficiency among carriers now licensed and equipped to move this class of freight.

REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 27

Viewed in the light of the principles mentioned, and the express and unqualified assurance of the objecting licensed carrier that it stands ready, willing, and able to provide the shippers in question with a service in every respect as good as, or better than, that offered by the appli­cant, the questions posed by this application can admit of only one answer. The only grounds on which one might hesitate in declining the authority sought are, firstly, the fact that only one of the directly affected carriers has seen fit to oppose it and, secondly, the fact that the applicant, an obviously efficient and highly qualified carrier, has been allowed for five months to operate the service in question under temporary permits. In the final analysis, however, an objection by one carrier only, if it appears valid, surely cannot logically be overlooked simply because it has not been advanced also by others, and the privilege of operating under temporary permit clearly cannot carry any right to special consideration in the disposition of an application for permanent authority, nor has the applicant suggested that it does or should.

The order of the Commission is therefore that the application be refused. The temporary permits granted to the applicant are continued, however, for a further period of 30 days to enable the applicant to carry out any outstanding obligations which it may have assumed, and these permits may be at any time further renewed by the Superintendent in future in the event that he is satisfied that all existing licensed carriers have refused to provide services reasonably required by seafood shippers on the route in question which the applicant is willing to provide. In the event that such refusal should persist and the present applicant still wished to provide a permanent service to and from Vancouver, it will be at liberty to reapply and its application should, if possible, be the subject of an expedited hearing.

Deposits by way of security for costs made by the applicant and the objecting carrier are in each case to be returned to the respective party, or its solicitor.

530-575-7123

BY THE COMMISSION

M. R. TAYLOR, Chairman

Printed by K. M. MACDONALD, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in right of the Province of British Columbia.

1975