SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
652
THE CITY OF LETHBRIDGE
May
APPELLANT
PLAINTIFF
AND
Oct
THE CANADIAN WESTERN NAT
URAL GAS LIGHT HEAT AND
POWER 00 LTD DEFENDANT
ON APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE
RESPONDENT
OF THE
DIVISION
SUPREME
COURT OF ALBERTA
ContractStatuteFranchiseSupply
to
Right
thereunderAlta
On
30
July
70Alta
69
seq 64
the
certain
price
visions
were
passed
of
period
to
of
under
by-law
to
power
lay
the
refusal
lant
then
by the
asked
was bound
The
fifteen
the
5th
of
of
reversed
was
dismissed on
that
Board
deal
enable
with
such
do
to
it
Duff
Idington
between
decline
Public
of
to
and
would
it
of
and
in
of
The
city
that
view
appel
from
dis
the
respondent
the period
stipulated
the
appellants
to
the appeal
action
this
has
complete
court
their
to
entertain
and should
the
clothed
re1egatethe
has
legislature
with
courts
the present
parties
constituted
to
adequate
powers
justice
JJ.On
Brodeur
it
which
the
JJ.Altbough
jurisdiction
exercise
and
and
the parties
Mignault
of
Utilities
cases
full
for
and
Division
denuded
should
they
to
and
maintaining
and
Anglin
been
price
judge
rates
pro
1922
division
equal
and
have
action
the
trial
and
April
the respondent
declaration
for
the
at
gas
the
in
restrain
to
the
at
impossibility
the by-law
increase
any
-and
gas
by the Appellate
C.J
not
grant
in
the
in
gas
terms
Its
years
On
fixed
price
injunction
of
supply
was
Davies
an
sale
judgment
may
to
city
for
the
the
at
and
which
pipes
natural
supplying
by the respondent
it
sell
avail
52
40
54
exclusive
purpose
39
27
notified
the city
company
appellant
month of May to sell gas owing to the
the
in
continuing
Per
for
and
accepted
continuing
to
the
for
28e
21
respondent
cease
Per
obtained
city
20
58
appellant
city
oornpany
of
streets
the
the
1912
sespondent
1928
ActRemedies
Utilities
ss
1915
municipality
to
gas
continuanceDeclaratory
enforce
orderPublic
judgmentMandatory
able
natural
of
to
discontinueInjunction
the construction
of
the agreement
contractual
of
were
obligations
reciprocal
character
Per
and
Idington
without
Per
city
the
Board
to
rates
merely
Per
to
entitled
view
Davies
as
it
appellants
affected
PR5sENT
and Mignault
the
existing
JJ.Under
by injunction
the
of
question
the circumstances
not be rendered
Duff
contra
the respondent
circumstances
court
this
remed.y
submit
to
is
not
of
any question as to the propriety
judgment
C.J and
might
should
for
one
obliged
Mignault
judgment
before
raise
declaratory
Per
of
is
case
being
and
Anglin
declaratory
J.In
Duff
appellant
C.J and
Davies
JJ.The
Brodeur
the
Duff
Anglin
otherwise have
claim
for
and
been
Mignault
just
mandatory
as
JJ.It
between
order
as
is
not
convenient
the parties
other
interests
to
grant
may
be
by it
Sir
JJ
Louis Davies
C.J and Idington
Duff Anglin Brodeur
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S.C.R
Per
and
Duff
deprives the
tions
raised
expressing
oust the
Judgement
in
no
APPEAL
the
from
ments now
the
W.W.R
of
the
Alberta
to
of the
the
above
judgment
appellants action
and the
case
of
in issue
questions
head-note
and
judg
in the
reported
K.C Ball
and Johnstone
them
with
for
appellant
THE
CHIEF JusTIcE.Not
reached
the
conclusion
with costs
J.The
IDINGT0N
made between
for
have
by
dismissal stated
such
and power
as
such
for
use
thereof
them
by
distribu
its
corporate
contract
capacity
con
as appellant
in respect
appellant
was
corporation
is
and
gas
the
contends
it
which
endowed with
into
into between
entered
gas
contract
enab
and powers
capacity
of natural
procuring
to enter
of natural
municipal corporation
is
and the respondent
tion and sale and also
tends was
doubt
appeal must be dismissed
reasons
corporate
upon
it
in the
engaged
much
without
this
appellant
the
all
to enter
it
the respondent
for
Anglin
endowed with
ling
that
concur in the
brother
of
and
supply
its
inhabi
tants
The
long
forth
set
part
so
useful
detail
repeated
Appeal who
by
heard the
by
the
case
purpose to be served
Suffice
it
to
to the
they are between
in great
far
up
history leading
whatever
tions
say that
the
the
the
there
by
inhabitants
of
for
franchise
creation
trial
term of years
it
judges
do not
and
W.W.R
Court of
had
838
see
any
same here
in
title
with appellant
to sell
and in
judge
that
repeating
rela
has been
in the
predecessors
from
of the
said parties
learned
learned
respondent had been in negotiation
acquisition
CAN WEST
NAT GAS
on
Division
reversing
Hellmuth K.C and Savary K.C
my
was
affirmed
838
Appellate
the
dismissing
in the
K.C
Lafleur
Act
Co LTD
decision
facts
are fully stated
CIIY OF
JJ LETHBRWGE
Mignault
that
of
1923
courts
Division
Supreme Court of
trial judge
and
material
effect
Utilities
the court
of
the
The
and
Anglin
the
the ordinary
the Appellate
of
whether
to
as
of
deal with
to
the ques-
Public
Alberta
authority
C.J and
Davies
case
opinion
of
Court
the
in
provision
Supreme
this
jurisdiction
division
equal
of
JJ.No
Brodeur
Act
653
gas
to
it
progressed
of
the
for
the
and
its
so
far
SUPREME COURT
654
he
that
CITY
OF
LEPRBRIDOE
1910 pursuant
That was
dered
such
months
as
rights
other interests which
and
pects
about
and by revote
and
Mayor
to
the
of
city
of
copy
to
No
No
99 of
We
hereby
forth
in
by
were
fol
in the
respondent
Avenue
Alta
East
1912
August
1st
of
the
said
No
the
being
No
by-law
99
of
city
certi
of
receipt
Lethbridge
such
city
the
and
to
by-law
being
by-law
the
for
Lethbridge
Canadian
at
and
to
fulfil
the
all
contained
Western
Natural
this
Calgary
and
to
amendments
the
to
agree
conform
will
refer-red
Limited
and
consent
we
154
therein
of
Company
acknowledge
of
city
pipes through
lay
by-law
behalf
the
154
gas
provisions
in
Power
Seventh
Calgary
to
respectfully
you that
notify
said
and
to
natural
of
Given
and
beg
franchise
grant
matters
the
Alta
Lethbridge
by-law
by-law
distribution
set
thereto
Council
GentlemenWe
amend
view
for it
more favourable
to amend its said by-law
terms and provisions
its
128
of
pros
with
they duly assented
electors
and
brighter
appellant
much
contract
having
letter
lowing
the
ren
had
in title
much
it
approached
and agreed
duly accepted
fied
for
opened up
of the
respondent
predecessors
That amending by-law and
To
the
respondent induced appellant
the
which
circumstances
later
its
possibilities
to bringing
with said parties
under
into
largely conditional
eighteen
acquired
by-law relative thereto in
passed
to agreement
entered
of necessity
it
About
Idnigtozi
had
appellant
CANADA
OF
EUGENE
Gas
Light
Heat
of
August
1912
day
first
COSTE
President
JOHN
BAIN
Secretary
Both
nearly
having
parties
ten
presently
years except
to
the
that
Lethbridge
cease
to supply
could
not
agreed
profits
at
hitherto
which
who
future
loss
by
leave
tenth
of
which
5th
May
given
continue
will
gas
in
following
was
that
it
to supply at the
seems to
it
for
April
its
using
of
excuse
reason
to
dated
had been
only
therewith
conformity
notice
on the
novel
court of justice
me
ignorant
for
of
reaped
There had been
ers
in
The
rates
breach of contract
the
would
same
except
upon
parties
it
in
in one particular
respondent
refer
1912 gave
acted
incline
previous
to
failure
think
was
to supply
so
far
manufactur
tacitly
assented
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S.C.R
to
the
by
might
In
other
all
be observed
relieved
The
if
respects
so long
as the
mere
concession
consider
of
that
and
matters
can
claim
to
be
or
LdH.P
there
not
ever
or anything beyond
the parties
which
can
respondent
supply
of
gas
clearly
but
may
it
referred
franchises such
con
can relieve
came
as
in
all
con
of
failure
them
the
of rail
cases
in the
question
and
to
absolute
an
analogy in law between
to see the
which
contract
therein
nothing
what
cost
was
and bound respondent to observe
provisions
from which
way
CrrY OF
are to
available
is
whether
franchise
there
tained
fail
respondents
supply of gas
contracts
if
at will
stituted an obligation
the
no reason
between
contract
that
LETHBRIDG
see
is
in
injunction
been well refused
the
raised herein
question
abandon
why
all
an
possibly
for have
applied
at
has been
the
that
appellant
respect
655
West
Great
The Queen
York and North
Company
Midland Railway Company
The Queen
or the more
ern Railway
recent
arose
parties
there
that
pretend
to give
At
for
tion
was
In that
as
the
the
the
demonstrate
in
the
submit
attitude
of
such
was
upon
franchise
case
the
to
other
the
party
as
herein
therefor
tried
the
of
respondent
herein
consideration
of
converse
principle
parties
that
much
decision
an obligation
in that
long
Molleur
he cites
claims
the
promised
part
on
converse
any
relation of
my
to
length
great
herein
end of
St Jean
attempt
but
municipality
involved
least
of an
out
and implied
from
obtaining
North
by respondents
at the
de
any other
involved
the
than contractual
Ville
imagine
although
destroy
was
London
cited
citing
La
of
than
point
attempted
is
should
case
accidentally
more closely in
That decision
which
when
counsel
the
decisions
comes
and others
case
this
Respondents
of
Co
Railway
factum and
list
Board
of Darleston Local
case
Western
perhaps at too
nature of the
rela
contractual
see
Quebec
referred
Code
for
it
874
to
arose
out
English
of the
118
E.R 663
40
858
E.R 657
the
118
law
well
as
application
Q.B 694
Cau S.C.R
629
of
Idington
SUPREME COURT
656
laws which
municipal
LETBRwaE
Cx WEST
NAr GAS
code
Quebec
by
case
here
in the
be held
to the
quite unable to see how
until
to
the
legislature sees
do not
fashion
think
bounds
of such
It
not the
is
formance
fatal
ab
of
of
two
contract
the
to
miles of pipe
graph
pany can
by
the
going
for
The
of
the
supervision
granted
injunction
be allowed
gives
involved
contract
and in appeal
costs here
learned
its
trial
judge
conclusion
the
to which
to in the
referred
the
along
It
of
be that
well
article
under
consider
appellant
to the
the
the
its
paragraph
for
the
municipality
above
effect
rights under
the
two
purposes
is
com
the
termination
by
contract
13 would put an end
terms of
the
obligation
to
may
obligation
the
five
own mere motion
form of abandoning
the
of
limb of the para
preceding
of its
the
of
of the
line
get
of this
terms
contract
adherence
thereof
that
to the
expression
company
per
the
damages could
escape
the
met by
rid
under
declaration
to
of the
inhabitants
through
necessary
the
after
it
specific
been
unable to concur with the view that
example
sonal
of
of by-law 154
on behalf
for
the
exceeds
am
by-law
rights
where
the
upon
much
to the
and
under
by th acceptance
supply on demand the demand for gas
and the
city
too
to have
adopt
calling
might have
breach of the
unable
and
contract
rests
it
am
say
unless
granted
causes
appeal with
judgment
company gave
by-law
it
case
the
J.I am
paragraph
Jus
effort
by commission
things
attempt to enforce
involving
to the
allow
and restore the
DUFF
when
not
adequate
would
to the
of obedience
is
may
go further
injunction
of an
case
initio
it
to
law as
relevant
objection
Certainly
Mr
of
be forced
can
observance of the
due performance
at all
in that
waste
Commissioners
of
fit
the
that
mutual
appellant
of regulating
and limited
circumstances
years
was
it
need not
majority opinion
the
Board
local
the
more modern
ten
as
dissenting judgment
below that
court
of respect
recourse
nature of the
the
if
contractual
the
that
only
same reasoning
to repeat
Out
and
alike
remedy
specifically
could
so fully with the
Stuart
tice
much
are
court
this
agree
Idington
gave
relation created
OF CANADA
operation
to
but that
of this
think
of those
the
it
per
is
un
appeal
entitled
to
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
The
of
propriety
either in the
by
trial
Judgment having
defendant
the
municipality
contract
to
trial
the
there
was
ing the
and deciding
construction
the
of
issues
decision
it
answer
To
the
the
such
be contrary
to
Commercial
and
on the
well
judgment
to
would
authority
Morton
Burgess
Bank
Industrial
as
any
raise
circumstances
as
principles
on
merits
such
got
declaratory
an objection in such
settled
their
favour
respondent company in
of
propriety
Morris
Bickett
upon
in its
municipalitys appeal to
plaintiff
to
entertain
competent
entertain
judge
and
for
that
ground
decision
to the
appealed
raised
decision
Having asked
raised
as
trial
the
municipal-
the
questions
contract
plaintiff
company
upon
for
the
plaintiff
the
the
asking
of
not
is
to the
question
in
any impropriety
action
merits but actually
the
not
Division
Appellate
the
respondent
at the
construed
having
with
the
of
dis-
not
or
pleadings
favour
judge
accordance
in
contention
itys
in
gone
657
was
judgment
declaratory
puted
the
OF CANADA
Russian
British
Bank
for
Foreign Trade
The
claim
for
footing
of Public
although
the
have
statute
the
establishing
find nothing in that
troversy
action
the
to protect
such
convenient
not
is
just
been
plaintiff
and
as between
mandatory order
Board
statute
of authority
in this
an order
with care the provisions
examined
of Alberta
it
have
such
different
interests of the
by such
circumstances
to grant
parties
on
stands
has ample power
Utilities
might otherwise
it
the
be affected
In these
interests
order
than
other
may
municipality
Board
mandatory
Interests
of Public
with
in accordance
Alberta
Utilities and
the
depriving
to deal
of the
the
can
Supreme Court
questions
con
in
with the course of the
court
J.The
ANGLIN
the
respondent
By
s.s
1923
public
of the
jurisdiction
it
L.R
is
The
provided
of
municipal
is
utility
province
54 of
of
53
appellant
subject
corporation
the
legislative
Alberta
Public
that
Utilities
in the
ILL Sc 47
1896
AC
675592
to
438
Act of Alberta
absence
AC
136
of
at
filed
143
LTH
SUPREME
658
consent
to
prior
aTHRmGE
to the
before
under
The
mined under
By
constituted
sioners of Alberta
Board
The
of
21
Section
The
fix
the
to
By
there
in
contract
amended
be deter
and
1915
21st
Public
be
to
price
therefore
of
1923
of April
Act
1915
of
Commis
Utilities
that
in
conferred
is
made
service
Utilities
jurisdiction
cases
and
it
by
this
over
all
all
on
in
respect
Act
or
by
that
general supervision
etc
charge
be
to
and
tolls
rates
board
the
determine
shall
any
is
to
power
given
charges
individual
existing
rate
joint
or unjustly discriminatory
insufficient
unjust
utilities
public
the province
23
section
of
Board
of
authority
legislative
the
toll
the
or
in 1910 and
Public
of
jurisdiction
and reasonable
whenever
rate
to
The
prior to the
provided
have
clause
just
Act
exclusive
declares
shall
Board
subject
must
Utilities
it
is
contracts
Act
other
any
was made
of the
69
to
thereto
Board
which
in
matters
all
1923 and
the
have
shall
statute
commodity
made
thereto
applicable
provisions
at issue
Public
of section
s.s
which
the
case
question
the
amendments
to
applicable
in the present
1912
statutory
of
supply
remain
shall
all
May
of
day
the
for
question
in
1st
the
charged
contrary
enactment
the
OF CANADA
COURT
or preferential
rather
incline to
put on
construction
the
too
this
Co
Clarke
that
in Northern
Edmonton
Al
was
narrow
By
27
the
board
is
empowered
municipal by-law or by any
to furnish
pality and
the
The
of
part
40 provides
for
sections
dressing
action
confer
which
decision
64 and
the
thereof
it
is
are
sufficiently
the
subject
it
is
application
in all
Vide
final
and
15
Alta L.R 416
for
re
matters in
s.s
52
res
restricted right of appeal
to
and
concerned
rights
made
deems
municipality or
board on such
jurisdiction
of the board
by
board plenary powers
enforcing
etc
resolution
board whenever
public
by
given
council
in the
on the
and
grievances
of
to the
public
by any
munici
any
it
and proper service
municipal
an application
intersts
considerab1e
respect
every
agreement with
adequate
39 empowers
Section
to authorize
Other
to require
to conform to the duties imposed upon
utility
that
Justice
clause
latter
Gas Development
berta Natural
Mr
with
agree
et
seq
judicata
70
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
S.C.R
and
binding
conclusive
in
and
porations
While
on
courts
in regard
the
action
be said
may
was
of this legislation
effect
cor-
municipal
the
as
that
are
the
the
of
jurisdiction
in
presented
be disposed
may
appeal
view
the
for
to oust
such matters
to
present
and
persons
this
without
of
so
For reasons
that
stated
the
am
that
opinion
by
my
Duff and Mignault
brothers
my
also with
Mignault
brother
merely declaratory
no event
in
order sought should
mandatory
be granted
of the
should
judgment
be
not
pronounced
The avowed
board
should
exercise
be exclusive
general
when
determine
the
decision
and
tion
all
the
matters
of
of questions
to
order
and
to
the
fact
upon
that
to
to
this
within
require
these
for
merely declaratory
must
ultimately
lature and
of its
policy
diction
which
do
it
the
and
legislature has
and
67559
complete
not
jurisdic
or
person
imposed by
board
and also
would
relief
not
the
follow
of
rights
than
other
prove
the
that
opinion
of respect
spirit
Public
have
an action
in the
not
if
the
now
to
to
deal
adequate
premises
the
of juris
before
jurisdiction
parties
legis
letter
Act
Utilities
as that
that
constituted
with powers
to the
been denuded
relegate the
justice
its
statute
the
Out
to exercise
should
and has clothed
full
such
of
in the
may
they
think decline
possess
effect
expressed
empowered
requisite for
of the
the
of
sub
whose jurisdiction the parties
to
recourse
into
to entertain
should
cases
as
although
courts
have
to carry
of the
could
judgment
fact
direction
concrete
am
embarrassing to the board
of
obligation
or
declaratory
action
made
is
company
any
provisions
no order
between
ambit of
the
order
by any
judgment
any
parties
or
and
to fulfil any
municipal corporation
any agreement
Having regard
law
agreements
the board
board
public
declared
it
expressly
is
all
the
is
upon
of
that
over
supervision
conferred
of
was
legislature
enforcement
the
of the jurisdiction
ject
of the
and municipalities
utilities
public
to
intention
jurisdiction
utilities
to
LETHBRIDuE
WEsr
L1i
Co.Lfl
Anglin
deciding
agree
1923
69
deal
great
nd
companies
all
courts
all
659
if
us
they
the
board
with
such
to enable
it
to
SUPREME COURT
CITY
OF
to
therefore
Subject
conclusion
Mr
of
the
OF CANADA
Clarkes opinion
Justice
LETBRIDGE
the
for
in
would
appeal with
disimss this
reasons
foregoing
indicated
reservation
the
solely
costs
CAN WEST
J.The
BRODEUR
Co Lo
most important
whether by the agreement between
bound
issue in this
the
to
the
In 1910 and 1912 by-laws were passed
by
ent
company
is
to
appeal
supply gas
is
respond
of Leth
parties the
city
bridge
the
by which
city
the
clusive power
in the
purpose of supplying natural
and
for
It
is
gas
company
the
gas
the
price
the
that
part
to use
and
to an
the
it
the
their
that
of
bility
fifth
the
the
city
to
the
price
could
to
of the
streets
at
years
contended
is
for
supply gas
privilege which
at
city
time
any
it
then
would
relations
contractual
the
by-laws
fifteen
it
the
relinquish
agree
and
city
of
period
part
the
to supply gas
company
its
by
above
on the
obliged
gas
on
and
the
of April 1922
it
gas
the
to sell
the
company notified the
in the month of May
gas
would cease
within
continuing
franchise
for
end
natural
sell
between
above
the
for
of Lethbridge that
city
to
that
at
that
bound and
is
ex
city
certain
plaintiff
based
are
no obligation
is
period
desired
passed
of the defendant
possessed
On
which
mentioned
there
come
and
company
definite
it
been
the
of
years
on the part of the
have
within
gas
inhabitants
its
of fifteen
period
claimed
ments which
On
and
corporation
plaintiff
of the
streets
council
obtained
company
respondent
to lay pipes
the
refusal
at
gas
of
the
of the
because
city
the
price
any
to
city
impossi
by
fixed
increase
its
in
rates
Then
the
present
pany
is
the
bound
at the price
The
As
city
judge
was
decided
reversed
the
first
future
and
city
stipulated
that
its
in the
the
agreements
but
his
in appeal
were
two
by-laws passed
by
one was passed in 1910 and was of
It
com
inhabitants
plaintiffs favour
in
city
company from discon
declaration
to the
the period
said before there
tative nature
in the
for
gas
and for
to supply gas
and
trial
decision
of gas
sale
has been instituted by the
to restrain the
for an injunction
tinuing
action
provided for the granting
because the
ownrs
of
the
of
gas
the
ten
the franchise
wells
were
and
binding
certain
it
more
could
of the
and
the
By
exclusive
demand
By
section
used subject
By
the
to
of
expiration
section
years
10
price
such
withdraw
has
price
stipulated
not
agree
with such
franchise
and
years
action
involves
sides
this
right
for
with
the
habitants
The
out
It
the
the
for
gas
the
that
of fifteen
period
the
paying
to
company
for
possible
was
years
of
supplying
gas
at
can
proposition
for
at
of
period
the
on
obligation
certain
very essence
yule de
fifteen
the
of
part
The trans
price
of reciprocal
came
Molleur
and
case
fifteen
before
Chicoutimi
contractual
rights
In
gas
waterworks
for
stituted
the
which
cases
ago viz La
de St Jean
chises
of
contention
obtained
the
company
supplying
be
shall
until the
of
obligation
character
contractual
In two
not
is
supply
to
company
it
assertion
with
was
to
inhabitants
its
franchise
the
for the
before
field
the
The
is
provisions
from the
con
to
agreed
fixed
is
elapsed on the
and
the
by
hereof
fifteen
Brodeur
upon
agreed
January 1913 and
city
that
provided
the
company
before
to the
gas
that
felt
supply and the
was
price
the
city
terrhs
domestic purposes
With
for
is
it
the
had
stage
determined
years
contract
in
line
LHBI
contract
company
as to the
franchise
of the
section
struct its pipe
the
experimental
respondent
formal
during
gas
by-law and
explicitly
of fifteen
period
supply the
the
of
supplying
the
The
explicit
more
stipulate
period
But
now
and
away
passed
time
of
period
1912 were
of
for the
contract
661
make
stage and would not
in the experimental
still
OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
it
in
this
these
relationships
decided
two
years
and La yule
LØgare
was
some
court
that
the
fran
con
municipalities
which
created
for
both
obligations
the
gas
obtained
company
obligation
during that
the
in the
years to lay its pipes
period
city
to
exclusive
limits but
in
supply the
with gas at the price agreed
contractual
consent
relations cannot
of both
was urged on
ordinary
courts
27
Can
the
upon
now be changed
with
parties
part
of the
of the respondent
company
that
land had no power to deal with
S.C.R 329
40
Can
S.C.R 629
SUPREME COURT
662
the
but that
question
an exclusive
THRIDGE
not
raised
Public
in
jurisdiction
the
by
in the Appellate
LH.JP
the
OF CANADA
in
company
matter
its
This point
but was
plea
by some
Division
Commission had
Utilities
that
of the learned
seems to be the ground upon which they
favour of the
Brocleur
The
my
in
to
respect
give
the
with
and
future
the
of
tractual
of the
land
not
does
Utilities
what
the
which might have
con
by
decisions
courts
ordinary
with the
deal
pointthat
of
subject
to
be urged
might
that
of
result
been stipulated
its
to be done
is
empowered
which
not
with
but
transactions
not
is
dispossess
right of dealing
obligations
past
decide
be the
may
does
it
of
agreements
do not
relations
board but
Public
to directing
board
the
breaches
may beand
It
as to the
arising out
rights
in
to decide
board the right to adjudicate
the
seems to be limited
power
in
of Alberta
opinion
relied
up
and
judges
company
gas
statute
was
brought
the
of the
contractual
between
the
parties
For those reasons the
appeal should
of the
restored
judgment
trial
and of the Appellate
to the
granted
to restrain the
from
shutting
off
the
price
city
of
1912
or
the
same
the
the term
the
of
plaintiff
defendant
July 1912
99
as
at
price
amended
The
to
said
same
of
the
at
the
to
trial
was
in
the
the
entitled
is
sufficient
or
to
of
period
not
prices
154
of
fifteen
said
fixed
fifteen-year period
letter
of
day
by
dis
at
the
of
August
the expira
July 1912
declaration
natural
those
set
from
gas
the
of
years from
than
of
154
of
until
city
30th
the 30th
forth
the
and
city
its
day
in
of
by-law
city
respondent
city
its
by-laws 99 and
terms in which
in the
prices
inhabitants
requirements
greater
the
or
city
by
supply
the
for
or from
said
said
with
interfering
inhabitants
respondents
of
appellant
plaintiff
way
any
its
said
out
set
years from
an order to the
the
or
city
council
supply of ntura1 gas to the
habitants
learned
respondent
the
in
or
was accompanied
by by-law
injunction
equivalent
the
of
continuous
for
the
gas from
Lethbridge
the
to
fifteen
city
company
inhabitants
of this court
costs
the
against
natural
of
mayor and
This injunction
that
of
city
upon the terms
and the defendants
Lethbridge
to
appellant
or
prices
directed
of
tion
of
the supply
continuing
which
injunction
supply
its
the
of
supply
the
latter
or the inhabitants
the
with
and
Division
J.The
MIGNAULT
judge
judge
be allowed
it
was
to
granted
continue
of Lethbridge and
the
mentioned
its
by-law until the
therein
Quite
is
the
in
end
in-
dependently
such
the
of
must
the respondent violated
court
should
such
grant
This
calls
Alberta
1915
of
to public
light
to
and
in writing
ordinance
duties
upon
39
every
municipal
public
in
of
steps
sary
if
to
with
it
is
council
concerned
with
clothed
questions
That
of water
to
respond-
of section
And
gas
which
to
respect
public
laws
of
the
public
Thus under
whenever
in
may by
order
and
province
and
utility
or other
municipal
any
conform
to
to
own
its
public
the
charter
utility
that
deems
it
that
considerable part
in
dispute
the
of
authorize
resolution
or intervenant
in
upon
in
section
by
notice
by the provisions of
or
out
set
utility
this
provided
the question
board are
Act
any municipality
or
authorize
between
and per
to supply natural
of the
take
the
to
the municipality
council
to
interest
the
is
any
decision
the
are
municipality
within
become
of
municipality
matter
any
and for that purpose
the
board
and to incur any expense
and
to
submit
full
relating
the
meaning
one with
is
the
necessary
Clarke
called the
furnishing
after hearing
thereby
it
complainant
any
the
contract
every
the
municipality
sufficiently
tion
body
all
the
of the
affecting
agreement
section
become
with
by-law
imposed
By
power
to require
or
of
board can be exercised
of the
comply
by any
or
as
and jurisdiction
the board has
to
Justice
can admit of no doubt
statute
that
and following
20
the
statutes
and the municipalities
inhabitants
its
jurisdiction
27
such
utility within
certain
The powers
sections
with
deal
services
of the
city
the
Mr
of
of
provisions
are entitled to these services
equally
is
Mignault
of the
Commissioners
to
corporations
subsection
it
of the
to create
is
the
to
jurisdic
authorized
to
take
neces
the board
and
proceedings
of
party
to
an
appeal
therefrom
40 enacts
Section
if
the Attorney
complaint
to
General
the
board
that
municipality
that
any
or
public
LHThGE
and
powers
appellant
chapter
statute
power
public
is
it
that
and equally
heat or power as well as with disputes
utility
who
ent
to the
judgment
Utility
and
utility
gas
public
think
even admitting
court
Public
jurisdiction
in the
that
say
convenient
consideration
of this
object
Board
sons
to
make
court should
extraordinary
its
Act
663
with the appellant that
another
if
available
is
the
appellate
The
exercise
Utilities
referred
the
in
not
for
Public
frankly
contract
its
an injunction
remedy
effective
the
can be no doubt
objectionablethere
the
whether
question
orderand
an
OF CANADA
COURT
SU1REME
S.C.R
any party
utility
interested
municipal
makes
corporation
SUPREME COURT
664
1923
about
LETHBRIDGE
the
NAT
GAS
unlawfully
matter
over
board
Co LTD
MignaultJ
board
jurisdiction
something
aforesaid
as
premises
fit
to
the
and
or
is
to
prays that
board
make
require
do
relating
after
shall
such
order
it
as
as
52 and
at
the
conferring
for
following
jurisdiction
the
enforcement
may
be mentioned
and
length
widest
by
64
section
of
its
with
it
pro
is
that
decision
the
of
be
shall
jurisdiction
Without
board
final
ordinary
court
it
held
Workmens
was
res
court
whether
is
by
is
the
as the
convinced that
rights
and
spondent
in restoring
aside
by
Mr
the
think
without
which
case
contractual
with the
the
by
think
would
re
statute
this
justify
which
appellant
pressed
is
the
that
injunction
of
the
asserted
right of the
years of the
the
was
set
for at
of the
of the
no
154
on
appellant
in the
of the
view
appellate
obligation
of the
utility
the
left
commis
con
do not
wish
by some
entertained
court
of
city
be
rights
but
on the
S.C.R 46
in
prices stipulated
board of public
the
to
appellant
services
whole matter had better
any pronouncement
judges
by
And because
made
it
redress
Act
do so in order to
can
terms and at the
to be taken as acquiescing
learned
pertinent
full
Utilities
do not
one
fifteen
or otherwise of
no binding
as this
Ontario
court
during
determination
tractual
its
jurisdic
the
as
statute
99 as amended by by-law
Lethbridge
sioners
by
Public
that
mandatory
of the
respondent upon the
to the
the
quite
is
remedy provided
on behalf
continuation
it
contract
out
the
declaration
no
within
statute
cannot obtain
appellant
effective
appellate
Lafleur
by-law
this
the
made
has
court
least
that
this
statute
Alberta
under the
that
and
convenient
appellant
by
such
complainant
statute
its
ousted
appealed to
applying to the board created
enforce
law
or
Act The Dominion Canners Co
that when the extraordinary
juris
think
under such
am
fact
of holding
length
courts
of
question
judicata
Compensation
of the
inquiry
any
be
ousted
Costanza
diction
upon
and
to the
going
tion of the
of the
the
in
providing
them
quoting
vided
the
and
do
to
failed
unlawfully
to
circumstances
effect
sections
orders
out
same
the
the
the
or
not
think
may
it
as
has
order
some
evidenoe
done
or unlawfully
the board
make
proper under
To
on
do
to
which
do
hearing such
thinks
has unlawfully
or person
company
OF CANADA
that
part
there
was
the
re
of
SUPREME COURT
S.C.R
the
spondent to continue
fif teen
upon
years
the
by-law
its
franchise
leave
all
stitutes
escape
these
res
The
that
or
board whose
right to
is
appellant
the
respondent
be dismissed
be
to
the
statute
is
states
final
by the
and con
Mignault
the
reserved
to the
all
are thus
my
jurisdiction
appellant
of
the
board
under the
the
to
judg
the rights and proper remedies
safeguarded
opinion
for the appellant
for
OF
determined
is
that
the
appeal should
with costs
McLaurin
CITY
would
obligation
finally
Appeal
Solicitors
the
during
by abandoning
could
such
from any
resort to
For these reasons
Solicitor
gas
ET
questions
decision
of natural
terms and at the prices mentioned in
ment appealed from and
of the
service
665
judicata
redress
obtain
the
OF CANADA
respondent
dismissed no costs
Ball
Savary
Fennerty