CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

(1935) 52 Ll L Rep 135

JUDICIAL COMMITTEEOF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

Before Lord Blanesburgh, Lord Russsell of Killowen, Lord Macmillan and Lord Thankerton.

Canada-Railways-Freight agreement between competing companies-Joint acquisition of subsidiary company- "7. The new company shall be required to route outbound freight traffic (including grain milled or stored in transit) originating on the lines of the new company and destined via Edmonton or Morinville to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties, in such a way that each of the parties shall receive on a revenue basis one-half the outbound freight traffic originating and destined as aforesaid, including such freight traffic routed by the shipper as well as such freight traffic unrouted by the shipper. Comparisons on a revenue basis of the traffic so received by each of the parties shall be made monthly, and any inequality of division in any month shall be rectified in succeeding months. The foregoing provisions in respect to freight traffic shall apply also to outbound express traffic and telegraph traffic respectively, originating on the lines of the new company and destined to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties. . . ."-Construction-Contention by appellants that grain shipped by them from Northern Alberta to Prince Rupert and Victoria (only served by appellants) should be excluded from the equal division of freight in accordance with above agreement - Meaning of "competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties"-Finding of Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada in appellants' favour-Question of law stated by Railway Commissioners: "Whether upon the agreement made between the Canadian National Railway Company and the

Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the 29th day of January, 1929, and the facts and circumstances hereinafter set forth, grain shipped from stations on the Northern Alberta Railways to Prince Rupert or to Victoria for export, and exported from either of those ports to, say, the United Kingdom, is to be excluded from the comparison of freight traffic for the purpose of the equal division to be made under Art. 7 of the agreement as not being 'outbound freight traffic destined to competitive points on or beyond the lines of the parties' as the expression is used in said article."- Finding reversed by Supreme Court of Canada.