Open Collections

 37th Annual Report
Covering the Licence-year Ended
February 28, 1977
Annual Report of the
MOTOR CARRIER
COMMISSION
Pursuant to Section 35
of the Motor Carrier Act
Printed by K. M. MacDonald, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty
in right of the Province of British Columbia.
1978
  Vancouver, B.C., June 30, 1977.
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-seventh Annual Report, pursuant to the provisions of section 35 of the Motor Carrier Act, covering the licence-
year ended February 28, 1977.
MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman
Stuart DeVitt, Deputy Chairman
Gerard M. Morris, Commissioner
  REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION,
1976/77
NEW COMMISSIONERS
During the licence-year 1976/77, new Commissioners of the Motor Carrier
Commission were appointed. By Order in Council dated June 17, 1976, Judge G.
Ross Sutherland was designated Chairman, while Stuart DeVitt was named a
Commissioner and by subsequent Order in Council was designated Deputy Chairman. Gerard M. Morris was appointed as the third member of the Commission,
effective January 1, 1977.
GENERAL
From 1939 until July of 1973 the Motor Carrier Act was administered by the
Public Utilities Commission, a body created by a statute, the Public Utilities Act.
In 1973, as a result of the passing of the Energy Act, the Public Utilities Commission was abolished and the Motor Carrier Commission was established to
administer the Motor Carrier Act, which provides for the regulation by the Commission of the business of transporting goods or persons by motor-vehicle for
compensation on British Columbia highways. Before such for-hire operations
can be lawfully conducted in the Province, a carrier must first obtain a licence from
the Commission.
There was an increase during the licence-year 1976/77 in the total number
of licences issued by the Motor Carrier Commission. Some 3,000 applications
for new or amended licence authority were filed with the Commission's Motor
Carrier Branch, which, after investigation, submitted them to the Commission for
decision. There was a slight reduction in the number of bus licences issued owing
to the greater activity of the Bureau of Transit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing. There was, however, a significant growth in the number of public
freight licences issued.
A substantial decrease is reported in the issuance of temporary permits over
the preceding licence-year, primarily in Class III permits which were reduced from
19,370 in 1975/76 to 13,481 in 1976/77.
The Motor Carrier Commission held nine formal public hearings in the
1976/77 licence-year. These hearings investigated new applications for licence
authority, to vary existing authority, or to consider the cancellation of licences for
failure to meet some requirement of the Motor Carrier Act or regulations. Some
of the more important findings, decisions, and orders of the Commission are shown
as Appendix B to this Report.
The Statement of Revenue derived from licence fees charged under the Motor
Carrier Act shows an increase of over $34,000 during this 1976/77 licence-year
when compared to the amount collected during the previous licence-year. This
increase in revenue, together with a corresponding growth in the number of public
freight vehicle licences issued over the last few years, is an indication of the continued vitality and importance of the motor carrier industry in the Province of
British Columbia. Revenue, licence and permit statistics are shown in Appendix A
of this Report.
 6 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
MECHANICAL INSPECTIONS
While the Motor-vehicle Act sets certain standards of construction and safety
of vehicles operating on the highways of British Columbia, additional regulations
under the Motor Carrier Act ensure the internal safety and comfort of passengers
carried by licensed passenger vehicles, particularly buses, with a capacity of more
than 12 passengers.
Prior to the 1975/76 licence-year, regular inspections of licensed passenger
vehicles were carried out by Inspectors of the Motor Carrier Branch. A co-operative arrangement has now been achieved so that inspections can be performed at
Motor Vehicle Branch testing stations on behalf of the Commission. This arrangement has been most satisfactory. It should be noted that Motor Carrier Branch
Inspectors continue to perform mechanical inspections in areas which are without
testing stations.
INSURANCE
All vehicles operating in the Province of British Columbia are required under
the general vehicle licensing laws of the Province to be insured for public liability
and property damage.
Under provisions of the Motor Carrier Act, all vehicles licensed by the Motor
Carrier Commission must also have adequate cargo insurance coverage, whereas
carriers handling C.O.D. shipments are required to take out and maintain fidelity
bond coverage with respect to the remittance of C.O.D. trust funds. Failure to
maintain required insurance by a carrier results in automatic licence suspension and
may lead to a cancellation of licence authority unless appropriate proof of coverage
is supplied.
LICENCES SUSPENDED OR CANCELLED
During the licence-year 1976/77 a number of Show Cause Hearings were
held at which licensed motor carriers were required to show cause why their licences
should not be cancelled either for non-compliance with requirements of the Motor
Carrier Act and regulations or for the failure to provide an adequate and efficient
service.   One licence was cancelled and one suspension imposed.
ENFORCEMENT
Motor Carrier Branch Inspectors, in addition to their general and investigative
duties in connection with applications and complaints lodged by shippers or carriers,
continue to work co-operatively with various enforcement agencies.
The enforcement of the licensing provisions of the Motor Carrier Act is primarily conducted by the various police forces of the Province, including the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police in their capacity as the Provincial police force. The work
of the police forces is supplemented by Weighmasters of the staff of the Ministry of
Energy, Transport and Communications, who check for infractions of the Motor
Carrier Act at various weigh stations located throughout the Province.
Reflecting the concern of the motor carrier industry over enforcement, the
Motor Carrier Commission on January 24, 1977, by Order 2-77, engaged a consultant to inquire into present procedures and practices by which the provisions of
the Motor Carrier Act and the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (Canada) are being
enforced in the Province of British Columbia. The consultant was authorized to
(a) examine the practices and procedures now in effect with respect to
the enforcement of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and the
Motor Vehicle Transport Act (Canada) in British Columbia;
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 7
(b) report to the Commission on these practices and their adequacy for
the purpose of achieving a reasonable enforcement of the provisions
of the aforementioned Acts;
(c) make recommendations to the Commission as to the manner in
which these enforcement practices and procedures can be made more
effective.
It is expected that the report may provide a focal point for a new approach
and increased emphasis on enforcement in the years ahead.
TIME SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS
The Motor Carrier Act requires licensed motor carriers to file current rate
schedules (tariffs) with the Commission for the transportation of either passengers
or freight between points within British Columbia. Once a rate schedule is accepted
by the Commission, it cannot be varied without prior consent of the Commission.
In addition, motor carriers holding certain classes of licences must file schedules with the Commission, showing times of arrival and departure from various
termini on their routes. They are required to maintain these schedules once
approved and may not vary them without first obtaining consent of the Commission. Motor Carrier Branch Rate Staff often assist carriers in the preparation and
filing of tariff and time schedules—a sendee appreciated by many of the licensed
carriers in British Columbia who conduct smaller operations.
The following table shows the number of tariff and time schedule applications
filed with the Commission through the Motor Carrier Branch in the 1976/77
licence-year. The drop in rate applications from 443 in 1975/76 to 333 in 1976/77
is due to receipt of fewer applications for mid-year rate changes, and to efforts by
Branch Rate Staff to combine groups of similar applications into one.
Continuous efforts are being made by the Commission and Motor Carrier
Branch personnel to streamline operations and increase efficiency by use of new
techniques and procedures.
Number of Applications Submitted During Licence-years Ending
in the Month of February of Each Year Referred to
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
Rate 	
Time	
333
35
443
31
357
45
223
46
216
41
179
36
191
51
199
48
179
50
81
37
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Summary of Total Revenue for the Licence-year 1976/77
Licence fees 	
Temporary permits
Miscellaneous   	
756,735.58
17,545.50
19,872.26
794,153.34
 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
REVENUE—ANNUAL COMPARISONS
The following is a comparative table by years of gross revenue:
Kind of Licence
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
Passenger (buses)	
$
60,782.00
34,278.50
564,211.20
22,537.24
12,869.93
58,015.25
38,741.00
619,719.27
20,674.50
16,678.75
$
60,775.38
39,731.00
631,912.73
13,349.00
14,362.30
$
45,212.50
42 065 00
Public and limited freight	
Permits	
Miscellaneous!— 	
669,458.08
17,545.50
19,872.26
Totals
694,678.87
753,828.77
760,130.41
794,153.34
i Includes fees for transfers and alterations  of  licences  and for copies  of  conditions  of licences  and
transcripts.
NUMBER OF LICENCES—ANNUAL COMPARISONS
The following table, by years, gives the number of licences for the various classes issued:
Kind of Licence
Number of Licences
New and Renewed*
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
Passenger (buses)2	
1,270
1,908
14,288
2,353
1,171
1,973
15,927
2,438
1,224
2,030
16,302
2,301
938
2.070
Public freight  	
17,523
2,179
Totals	
19,819
21,509
21,857
22,710
1 Excluding transfers and licences issued for replacement vehicles.
2 Includes sedan cars licensed as public passenger vehicles.
TEMPORARY PERMITS
In order to provide flexibility, Part 10 of the Motor Carrier Act Regulations 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
1976/77:
Class II permits (for temporary operation as a public or limited vehicle for
periods not exceeding 92 days)        3,879
Class III permits (for the temporary operation of a licensed public or a limited
vehicle in a manner other than authorized by the licence, or pending consideration of an application for licence, renewal, alteration, or transfer of
licence, etc.)   13,481
Special temporary permits (issued to carriers from provinces having reciprocity
agreements with the Province of British Columbia respecting commercial
motor-vehicle licences for the transport of household goods)      1,128
Total   18,488
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
Appendix B
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  37-76
In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act (R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252) and the Energy Act
(S.B.C. 1975, Chap. 29) and Amendments Thereto and Regulations Thereunder, and in
the Matter of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14) and Amendments Thereto, and in the Matters of
(a) an Application of J. & G. Transport Ltd. for an Alteration to Licence Authority
as Published Under No. 1903b; and
(£>) a Requirement That J. & G. Transport Ltd. Show Cause Why Its Existing Licence
Authority Should Not Be Cancelled
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated this 25th day of June 1976.
ORDER
Whereas a public hearing was held on November 20, 1975, in Vancouver, B.C., with
respect to an application of J. & G. Transport Ltd., published as No. 1903b, for alteration to
that company's existing motor carrier licence authority, at which hearing that company was also
required to show cause why its existing motor carrier licence authority should not be cancelled
due to non-compliance by it with the terms and conditions of the motor carrier licence authority
which it then held; and
Whereas after the commencement of the hearing J. & G. Transport withdrew its application
for alteration to its existing motor carrier licence authority; and
Whereas the Motor Carrier Commission continued the hearing of the show cause portion
of the application and in the light of the information gained at the hearing deferred its final
decision for a period of six months from January 5, 1976:
It is the decision of the Motor Carrier Commission that the motor carrier licences issued to
J. & G. Transport Ltd. not be cancelled, but remain in full force and effect.
The Commission orders that J. & G. Transport Ltd. be assessed the sum of $100 toward the
costs of the Commission in the holding of the hearing in this matter and the sum of $50 already
paid by that company as security for costs be set off against the said sum of $100.
By the Commission:
G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  52-76
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 of Hugh Lindsay, d/b/a North Burnaby Taxi, to the Motor Carrier
Commission Pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act Published as No. 538
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated this 3rd day of September 1976.
 10 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
PART 1—ORDER
Upon consideration of the application of Hugh Lindsay, d/b/a North Burnaby Taxi
(published as No. 538) for motor carrier licence authority as described in the notice of hearing
in this matter dated July 8, 1976, the material submitted in support of and in opposition to the
application during the course of the preliminary investigations of that application prior to the
public hearing thereof, and at the hearing of the application held at Vancouver on August 30,
1976, at which the applicant was present by his committee duly appointed by order of the
Honourable Mr. Justice McKay of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated August 18,
1976, one Hugh Burns Lindsay, and was also represented by counsel:
The Motor Carrier Commission hereby orders that the application of Hugh Lindsay, which
was described in the notice of hearing in this matter as follows, be and it is hereby granted:
Description of Application
Eleven new limited passenger-vehicle licences with five-passenger carrying capacity to
operate in the following manner:
Terminal point from which vehicle will be operated: Burnaby, B.C.
Service that may be rendered:  Charter trips only, for business originating in the
Municipality of Burnaby transporting a person or group of persons, under charter,
to any point in British Columbia.
The Commission further orders that the sums of $50 paid by the applicant and each of the
qualified objectors as security for costs with respect to the hearing of this matter be refunded.
PART 2—COMMENTARY RE DECISION
While the Commission, in arriving at its decision on the application of Hugh Lindsay,
noted that there were 17 objectors to the application who qualified themselves to make representations at the hearing of the application pursuant to Regulation 4.16 made under the Motor
Carrier Act, the Commission also noted that those objectors were either employees of one
licensed taxi company, Bonny's Taxi (1971) Ltd., or another licensed taxi company, Capital
Hill Taxi, which company is wholly owned and controlled by Bonny's Taxi (1971) Ltd., or
licensed individual taxi operators being dispatched by the one presently operating Burnaby Radio
Taxi Dispatch Organization, operated by Bonny's Taxi (1971) Ltd.
The Commission does not view the aforementioned situation as indicative that there is a
truly competitive situation in the taxi business in Burnaby. The Commission is of the view
that there is evidence that the introduction of a new independent taxi service such as that
proposed by the applicant Hugh Lindsay to Burnaby could be a convenience to the public.
In this regard the Commission has noted from evidence brought before it at the hearing
of this matter that the Municipality of Burnaby, through its duly elected council and the appropriate transportation committee of that council, has, after conducting investigations of the need
for taxi services in Burnaby, which included hearings of the views of concerned parties, decided
that the new taxi service for Burnaby proposed by the applicant, Hugh Lindsay, was desirable
and necessary in the public interest.
The Commission has further noted that, in so far as its jurisdiction in this matter permitted,
the municipal authorities of Burnaby have authorized, under municipal licence, Hugh Lindsay
to perform the taxi operations which, in part, are the subject-matter of his application to the
Motor Carrier Commission.
In this regard the Commission has noted that in a letter written by the principal protestant
to the application of Hugh Lindsay, Bonny's Taxi (1971) Ltd., dated December 8, 1975, to the
Mayor and Council of the Municipality of Burnaby, that company appears to have recognized
the need for the licensing of additional taxi vehicles to operate to and from Burnaby, though
at the same time that company suggested that it should be the one to operate such cabs as an
addition to their present fleet.
The Commission was not persuaded by anything brought to its attention by the objectors
to the application that the decision of the Municipality of Burnaby in this case was not founded
upon a reasonable assessment of the situation respecting the need for a truly competitive and
independent taxi service in Burnaby to supply the additional taxi vehicles deemed to be
required for proper service to that community.
It was suggested by objectors in the course of the proceedings at the hearing of this application that the de facto single control of taxi operations in Burnaby which at present exists is
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 11
necessary in the public interest in order that proper service to the public and a reasonable
return to the operators of taxi businesses be maintained.
The Commission was not convinced by its investigations of this application that the result
of the granting of the application of Hugh Lindsay would be to seriously impair the taxi service
which now and in the immediate future would be available to the public in Burnaby, contrary
to the public interest.
By the Commission:
G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  59-76
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 the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14), and in the Matter of the
Applications by National Freight Consultants Inc., d/b/a National Freight Systems, Published as Nos. 2048a and 777
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated this 25th day of October 1976.
DECISION AND ORDER
The applications of National Freight Consultants Inc. as set out in the notice of hearing
dated July 13, 1976, were heard by this Commission on September 28, 29, and 30, 1976.
In this matter the applicant company, National Freight Consultants Inc., the directors of
which are three men with extensive experience in the trucking business, for a very short period
of time (approximately two months) attempted to establish a consulting firm under the name
of National Freight Consultants Inc., which would act as an agent to secure freight for persons
or firms who had no facilities in British Columbia.
This venture did not prove successful and National Freight Consultants Inc. then applied
for the hauling authority at present before the Commission.
Although 11 trucking companies did indicate in one way or another their desire to be heard
as objectors to the application at the hearing, only two of these objectors qualified to be heard
as objectors within the meaning of section 7 (2) (a) of the Motor Carrier Act and, although
these two objectors had a right to call evidence pertaining to the service already provided on
the route in question, they chose to call no evidence.
On the whole of the evidence in this hearing, the Commission makes the following findings
of fact:
(1) That the principals of the applicant company have an unusual amount of experience in the trucking industry, from the driving of trucks to the dispatching and
management of relatively large trucking firms still operating on the trucking route
herein applied for, and this length and varied experience should benefit the
shipping public:
(2) That the applicant company, which has been operating from April 1976 to date
on permits issued by the Commission, has established office and terminal facilities
in British Columbia and Alberta to service the shipping public:
(3) That the applicant company has equipment available through ownership and
lease arrangement to service the public need; and the company has at present
on order 15 new trailers to add to its fleet:
 12
MOTOR CARRIER ACT
(4) That the applicant company has from April 1976 to date found the operation of
the service they have provided to have been economically viable, having generated
business at a rate of approximately $100,000 per month:
(5) That the shippers who have availed themselves of the applicant's services have
found the applicant to be prompt and efficient and reliable in supplying services
when requested.
Counsel for one of the qualified objectors argued strongly that it was the obligation of this
Commission, in the light of section 37 of the Motor Carrier Act, to regulate the number of
carriers licensed for the route in question in order to maintain the present carriers in an
economically sound position, and references were made to decisions of previous pronouncements of H. F. Angus and Martin R. Taylor in this regard.
Having read the decisions of H. F. Angus and Martin R. Taylor, which dealt with section
37 of the Motor Carrier Act, this Commission is in agreement with the principles expounded
by both of these previous commissions, in which both Angus and Taylor agree that the primary
concern of the Commission is that of the public. The mere fact that the new carrier by his
competition may reduce the profits of the existing carriers is not the test to be applied, but if
the reduction of revenue to existing carriers were such as to make the continuation of the service
to the public uneconomical, then this competition should be denied, because of the resulting
disadvantage to the public.
In the present application, although the witnesses for the applicant were vigorously cross-
examined at length by Mr. Macdonald (counsel for one of the objectors) as to the availability
of transportation services already provided by licensed carriers on the route, and the financial
feasibility of the applicant being allowed to compete for freight over this route, no evidence
was called by either of the qualified objectors as to the effect that the operations of the applicant's had had to date on the companies already providing services.
The Commission at the conclusion of the hearing had heard no evidence as to the effect
this applicant's operations from April 1976 to date had had on the revenue of existing carriers
nor did the Commission have any evidence from existing carriers that they could service the
public need which the applicant was providing on a temporary basis, and which the applicant
was applying to service on a permanent basis.
Having made the previously mentioned findings of fact, we conclude that the applicant
should be granted forthwith operating authority to provide services for the transportation of
freight as set out hereunder.
It will be noted that the authority granted is not precisely what was applied for and in
particular does not include the carrying of grain, as it is the Commission's view that the applicant failed to establish public need for this service.
The Commission hereby orders that the applicant be granted licence authority for the
operation of 10 Class III Public Freight vehicles, with conditions of licence as follows:
Commodities to be carried: Building materials, including glass and reinforcing steel;
machinery and construction equipment, which because of size or weight requires the use of
special loading or unloading equipment, or is self-loaded or unloaded under its own power
(charter trips).
For whom to be carried: One individual or company only at any one time.
Area, route, or territory: From Vancouver and points situated within 45 road-miles of its
boundaries transported to the British Columbia-Alberta border or vice versa.
Restriction—Transportation services authorized under this authority are restricted to
services performed with the use of platform-type trailer equipment; transportation by means of
van-type equipment is prohibited.
The Commission further orders that the application of National Freight Consultants Inc.
for transfer to them from Vernon A. Fair of all Class III Public Freight vehicle licences issued
by the Commission to and in the name of Vernon A. Fair, which application was also the
subject-matter of the hearing in this matter, be and it is hereby granted.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits of $50 paid by all persons with
respect to the hearing of these applications be refunded.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 13
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  64-76
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 the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14) and Amendments Thereto,
and in the Matter of
(a) an Application of Oldham's Transport Ltd. for an Alteration to Licence Authority
as Published Under No. 2717; and
(_>) A Requirement That Oldham's Transport Ltd. Show Cause Why Route No. 1 of
That Company's Existing Conditions of Licence and the Attendant Restrictions Should Not
Be Deleted From the Carrier's Licence Authority
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated this 18th day of November 1976.
ORDER
Whereas a public hearing was held commencing on Wednesday, October 27, 1976, with
respect to an application of Oldham's Transport Ltd., published as No. 2717, for alteration to
that company's existing motor-carrier licence authority, at which hearing that company was
also required to show cause why the motor carrier licences already held by that company should
not be amended by the deletion therefrom of Route No. 1 of Part 1 of the conditions attached
to that licence and the attendant restrictions thereon limiting transport services under that clause
to those conducted to the order and under the direcion of another motor carrier, Van-Kam
Freightways Ltd.; and
Whereas the show cause portion of the subject-matter of the hearing was heard first, and
the hearing of the application for alteration to licence authority followed; and
Whereas evidence was given by representatives of Van-Kam Freightways Ltd. that Oldham's
Transport Ltd. transported freight under clause 1 of Part 1 of conditions which were attached to
that carrier's licence, which freight was not carried to the order or under the direction of
Van-Kam Feightways Ltd.; and
Whereas Ernest Oldham, proprietor of Oldham's Transport Ltd., admitted that on various
occasions since January 1, 1976, his company had transported freight over Route 1 of Part 1
of the conditions attached to his company's licence, and which freight was not carried to the
order of or under the direction of Van-Kam Freightways Ltd.:
The Commission hereby orders that Route 1 of the existing Conditions of Licence of
Oldham's Transport Ltd. and the restriction related thereto, which reads as is set out below,
be and they are herby cancelled.
The Commission further directs that the Superintendent of Motor Carriers forthwith delete
the said route and restriction from the conditions attached to the licence of Oldham's Transport
Ltd.
Terminus: Kamloops.   Terminus: Golden.
Route and intermediate points: Direct via Trans-Canada Highway (service as need dictates
to Canoe, Tappen, and Sorrento or intermediate off-route points).
Restrictions re Route 1—All freight transported under scheduled authority shall be to the
order and under the direction of Van-Kam Freightways Ltd., whose tariff and bills of lading
shall be used. No service involving both pick-up and delivery permitted between Salmon Arm
and Canoe or intermediate points.
Whereas the evidence produced both during the show cause portion of the hearing and the
application portion of the hearing included substantial admissions by the proprietor of Oldham's
Transport Ltd. of deliberate infractions of the licence authority issued to that company by the
Commission, the Commission, in addition to the cancellation of Route 1 of the conditions
attached to that carrier's Licence, hereby orders that the whole of the licence authority issued
to Oldham's Transport Ltd. be suspended for a period of 10 days.
The Commission, however, in considering the possible effect of the suspension on innocent
third parties and the financial burden on the carrier, fixes as an alternative to the suspension a
pecuniary penalty of $1,000 to be paid forthwith to the Superintendent of Motor Carriers.
 14 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
The Commission further orders that, if the sum of $1,000 is not paid by December 1,
1976, all licences issued by the Commission to Oldham's Transport Ltd. will stand suspended
for the period December 14, 1976, to December 23, 1976, both dates inclusive.
The Commission, in the light of the information gained at this hearing, hereby defers its
final decision on the application of Oldham's Transport Ltd. for alteration to that carrier's
authority as set out in the Notice of Hearing in this matter dated July 30, 1976, for a period
of six months from the date of this order. In the meantime the Commission authorizes the
Superintendent of Motor Carriers to issue to Oldham's Transport Ltd. temporary authority by
way of permits in the terms of the authority sought by the applicant's application for alteration
to licence authority as described in the Notice of Hearing herein.
This Commission directs the Superintendent of Motor Carriers to closely supervise the
operations of Oldham's Transport Ltd. for a period of four months from the date of this order
as to that carrier's compliance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and regulations
thereunder during that period, and to report thereon in writing to the Motor Carrier Commission at the end of the fourth month.
The Commission hereby fixes April 4, 1977, as the date (prior to the expiration of the
aforementioned six months' period) when the Commission will require Oldham's Transport
Ltd. to appear before it to show cause why the alteration of licence sought by that company
as referred to herein should not be refused, and further to show cause why the whole of the
licence authority issued to Oldham's Transport Ltd. should not be cancelled.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits of $50 paid by all the participants
in this matter be refunded, with the exception of the security deposit paid by Oldham's Transport
Ltd., which may be set off against the alternative pecuniary penalty imposed on that company.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  1-77
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 the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14) and Amendments Thereto,
and in the Matter of an Application by Onkar Transport Ltd. for Motor Carrier Licence
Authority Published Under No. 2198/76
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated the 10th day of January 1977
ORDER
After having considered the information gained by staff investigators on the application
of Onkar Transport Ltd., published as No. 2198/76 prior to the public hearing thereof and the
information gained at the public hearing on November 3, 1976, the Commission has concluded
as follows:
The applicant in this case has submitted insufficient evidence that there is any broad shipper
need for the extra-provincial motor carrier services between British Columbia and Alberta
proposed to be supplied. Convincing evidence of the availability of a number of other carriers
has been submitted by those opposing the application who could provide transportation services
of many kinds, including those sought by shippers supporting the applicant at the hearing.
The Commission finds that such evidence as was submitted in support of the application
related only to traffic moving from British Columbia to points in Alberta.   No evidence of any
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 15
significant traffic originating in Alberta was submitted by the applicant. In these circumstances
the Commission questions the economic viability of the proposed operations.
The Commission therefore finds that no significant public interest would be served by the
granting of the application.
The Commission therefore orders that the application of Onkar Transport Ltd. be and it is
hereby refused.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits in the sum of $50 paid by the
applicant and by each of the qualified objectors who appeared at the hearing of the application
be refunded. The security deposit of $50 made by Porter Trucking Ltd., who did not appear
at the hearing, is to be retained, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4.16 made
under the Motor Carrier Act.
By the Commission:
G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  3-77
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 the Motor Vehicle Transport Act (R.S.C. 1970, Chap. M-14) and Amendments Thereto,
and in the Matter of an Application by Global Transportation Services Inc., of New Westminster, B.C., Published as No. 886/1976
Before Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 15th day of February 1977
ORDER
Having considered the information gained by staff investigations of the application of
Global Transportation Services Inc., published as No. 886/1976, the amendments to that application made at the public hearing thereof held on February 1, 1977, and what was submitted
at the hearing by the applicant and the qualified objecting motor carriers to the application, the
Commission concluded that:
The applicant, who called no shipper witnesses in support of his application, had not
submitted convincing evidence either of shipper need for his proposed service or of any general
public benefit which would arise from the granting of his application.
Carriers opposing the application in question submitted evidence of the availability of a
substantial number of already licensed motor carriers who could readily provide transport
services which the applicant proposed to provide and, in particular, to those shippers whom the
applicant represented were his proposed customers.
The Commission therefore orders that the application of Global Transport Services Inc.
be and it is hereby refused.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits in the sum of $50 paid by the
applicant and by each of the qualified objectors who appeared at the hearing of the application
be refunded.
By the Commission:
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner and Deputy Chairman
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
 Printed by K. M. MacDonald, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty
in right of the Province of British Columbia.
1978
250-378-8658