Open Collections

BC Sessional Papers

38th Annual Report Covering the License-year Ended February 28, 1978 Annual Report of the MOTOR CARRIER… British Columbia. Legislative Assembly 1979

Item Metadata

Download

Media
bcsessional-1.0378746.pdf
Metadata
JSON: bcsessional-1.0378746.json
JSON-LD: bcsessional-1.0378746-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): bcsessional-1.0378746-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: bcsessional-1.0378746-rdf.json
Turtle: bcsessional-1.0378746-turtle.txt
N-Triples: bcsessional-1.0378746-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: bcsessional-1.0378746-source.json
Full Text
bcsessional-1.0378746-fulltext.txt
Citation
bcsessional-1.0378746.ris

Full Text

  38th Annual Report
Covering the Licence-year Ended
February 28, 1978
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.
1979
  Vancouver, B.C., August 9, 1978.
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-eighth Annual Report,
pursuant to the provisions of section 35 of the Motor Carrier Act, covering the
licence-year ended February 28, 1978.
MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman
Stuart DeVitt, Deputy Chairman
Gerard M. Morris, Commissioner
  REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION,
1977/78
GENERAL
The present members of the Motor Carrier Commission are Chairman G.
Ross Sutherland, Deputy Chairman Stuart DeVitt, and Commissioner Gerard M.
Morris.
The transport of goods or persons by motor-vehicle for compensation in
British Columbia is regulated, under licence, by the Motor Carrier Commission,
through its Motor Carrier Branch.
The Commission may grant or refuse a licence authority to transport for
compensation. An application for such authority is granted or refused after the
application is investigated and the Commission has carefully considered all relevant
factors, including the evidence of public need for the proposed operation in the
light of similar services already being provided by duly licensed motor carriers.
During the licence-year 1977/78 the Commission, after investigation by its
Motor Carrier Branch staff, made decisions on 2,341 applications for new or
amended licence authority. There was an increase of over 2,000 in the number
of motor carrier licence-plates issued for vehicles operated pursuant to authorities
held by licensed carriers, which indicates a growth in the over-all number of
vehicles operated by licensed motor carriers of approximately 9V& per cent.
There was a substantial increase in the number of licences issued for public
passenger buses, indicating greater activity in that field, as well as the addition of
new vehicles to existing fleets.
It is noted that the total number of temporary operating permits rose in
1977/78 to 19,957 from die 18,488 issued in the previous year.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The Commission held 10 formal public hearings during the 1977/78 licence-
year respecting new applications for licence authority by existing licensees and
new entrants or to require licence-holders to show cause why their licence authority
should not be cancelled for failure to provide efficient and adequate service or for
noncompliance with the requirements of the Motor Carrier Act and regulations.
In addition, the Commission conducted a number of informal reviews of
decisions with respect to applications for licence authority. Some of the more
important findings, decisions, and orders of the Commission are shown as Appendix
B of this Report.
INSURANCE
Provincial legislation relating to public liability and property damage requires
that all vehicles operating in the Province carry appropriate insurance coverage.
All vehicles licensed pursuant to the Motor Carrier Act by the Commission must
also carry and maintain cargo insurance and, in addition, those carriers who undertake the transportation of C.O.D. shipments are required to carry fidelity bond
coverage with respect to the remittance of C.O.D. trust funds.
Failure by a carrier to provide proof to the Commission of adequate insurance
coverage results in an automatic suspension of a carrier's licence. Such suspension
is generally lifted when appropriate proof of coverage is filed with the Commission.
A carrier's licence may be cancelled should he be unable to satisfy the Motor
Carrier Commission that he is adequately insured under regulations of the Motor
Carrier Act.
5
 6 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
MECHANICAL INSPECTIONS
The Motor-vehicle Act sets certain standards of construction and safety for
vehicles which operate on the highways of British Columbia. In addition, regulations of the Motor Carrier Act ensure the internal safety and comfort of passengers
on licensed passenger vehicles, particularly of buses with a capacity for more than
12 passengers, which are licensed by the Commission.
Regular inspection of passenger vehicles is carried out on behalf of the Commission by Inspectors of the Motor-vehicle Testing Stations. Inspectors of the
Motor Carrier Branch of the Commission continue to perform such mechanical
inspections in areas which are without testing stations.
BRANCH INSPECTOR OFFICES
Over the years, the Motor Carrier Branch, which is the operational arm of the
Motor Carrier Commission, has established inspectorates in various areas of the
Province. During the' current licence-year, such offices were maintained in eight
centres, including Burnaby, which serves the entire Lower Mainland area, Victoria,
Nanaimo; Prince George, Dawson Creek, Kelowna, Kamloops, and Nelson. In the
interests of greater efficiency, the Commission approved, prior to the end of the
current licence-year, the closing of the Kootenay office in Nelson and its relocation
in Cranbrook.
ENFORCEMENT
In addition to investigating and reporting on applications filed by carriers and
public complaints respecting carrier services, Motor Carrier Inspectors continue to
work in co-operation with the various provincial enforcement agencies, including
local police forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Weigh Scale
Branch of the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications.
REVENUE
The statement of revenue derived from licence fees, permits, and miscellaneous
income shows a substantial increase of $90,000 over the amount collected in the
previous year. The increase in revenue, together with a healthy growth in the
number of licences issued during the 1977/78 licence-year, is an indication of the
continued development and growth of the motor carrier industry in British Columbia.
Statistics on revenue, number of permits issued, and the comparison of licences
issued are reprinted in Appendix A herein attached.
TIME SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS
Licensed motor carriers are required by the regulations of the Motor Carrier
Act to file with the Commission current rate schedules and tariffs and to adhere to
such schedules once they have been approved for filing. Licensed carriers who
operate on a regular time schedule must file with the Commission, schedules showing
the time of arrival and departure from the various termini on their routes. These
cannot be varied without first obtaining the prior consent of the Commission. As
many of the licensed carriers operating within the Province conduct smaller operations, the rate staff of the Commission are often called upon to assist in the
preparation and filing of tariff applications.
In the licence-year 1977/78 the Commission and its staff in consultation with
representatives of the regulated motor carrier industry have sought means to reduce
delays in the decision-making process in tariff matters.
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
On April 1, 1977, a new optional tariff filing procedure was put into effect by
the Commission, allowing interim decisions to be made on tariff applications within
a period of 30 working-days, providing the applicant had complied with certain
basic requirements. Such decisions are subject to review and revision, if necessary,
by the Commission within a 90-day period, after which if no review has been
instituted, the decisions automatically become final.
The following table sets out the number of time schedule and tariff applications
filed with the Commission at its Motor Carrier Branch during the licence-years
1975-78.
Number of Applications Submitted During Licence-years Ending in the
Month of February of Each Year Referred to
1978
1977
1976
1975
340
26
35
1
443
31
357
Appendix A
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
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
Passenger (buses).
Passenger (taxis)—
Public freight -
Limited freight.
Totals..
1,171
1,973
15,927
2,438
1,224
2,030
16,302
2301
938
2,070
17,523
2,179
1,547
2,184
18,784
2.338
21,509
21.857
22,710
24,853
SUMMARY OF TOTAL REVENUE FOR THE LICENCE YEAR 1977/78
licence fees 	
Temporary permits
Miscellaneous  	
823,587.79
20,876.00
40,051.05
884,514.84
REVENUE—ANNUAL COMPARISONS
The following is a comparative table by years of gross revenue:
Kind of Licence
1974/75
1975/76
1976/77
1977/78
$
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
14^62.30
s
43,212,50
[      42,065.00
669,458.08
17,545.50
19,872.26
$
41,819.00
Public and limit-H freight
730,970.79
Permits
20,876.00
40,051.05
753.828.77
760,130.41
|    794,15334
1
884,514.84
L Includes fees for transfers, alterations of licences, and for copies of conditions of licences and transcripts.
 8 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
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
1977/78:
Class II permits (for temporary operation as a public or limited vehicle not
registered with the Motor Carrier Commission for periods not exceeding
92 days) i     4,076
Class III permits (for temporary operation of a licensed public or a limited
vehicle in a manner other than is authorized by the licence, or pending   .-'■■'■'
consideration of an application for licence, renewal, alteration, or transfer
of licence, etc.)  14,682
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)      1,199
Total I         '.  19,957
Province of British Columbia.
Motor Carrier Commission
35-77
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 of J. & G. Transport Ltd., Surrey, B.C., for Alteration
to Its Existing Licence Authority Which Application Was Published as No. 1935a
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 20th day of April 1977.
ORDER
Whereas the application of J. & G. Transport Ltd. came oh for hearing before the Motor
Carrier Commission on Monday, April 18, 1977; and
Whereas the applicant, through counsel, applied to amend the application by deleting
entirely the third and fourth clauses of the application as set out in the notice of hearing in this
matter, which was dated March 4,1977; and
Whereas the applicant further amended the application by altering the description of the
shipper as contained in the second clause of the application as set' out in the notice of hearing
so that that description would read "Keystone A & A Industries Ltd." and also by deleting from
the area description of that clause the words "or vice versa"; and
Whereas the Commission consented to the aforementioned amendments; and
Whereas on the deletion of the fourth clause of the application all qualified objectors to
the application withdrew their objections:
The Commission, after considering the representations of the applicant in support of its
application as amended, hereby orders that the said application be and it is hereby granted.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits of $50 paid by the applicant and
each of the qualified objectors be refunded.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
.     . ...    Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
64-77
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 the Renewal of Motor Carrier Licence Authority Issued by the Motor
Carrier Commission of British Columbia to and in the Name of Chinook Trucking Ltd.,
206 Livestock Building, Calgary, Alta.
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated the 26th day of May 1977.
ORDER
Whereas the Motor Carrier Commission, by formal notice of hearing dated March 24,
1977, required Chinook Trucking Ltd. to show cause why the renewal of the licence authority
issued to that company by the Motor Carrier Commission should not be denied due to failure
on the part of the company to provide an adequate and efficient service under such licence; and
Whereas the matter came on for hearing on May 5, 1977, and was adjourned for a further
hearing on May 18, 1977; and
Whereas after consideration of what was represented at the hearing on behalf of Chinook
Trucking Ltd., the Commission has concluded that the renewal of the licence authority issued
to that company should not be denied:
The Commission hereby orders that the motor carrier licence authority issued to Chinook
Trucking Ltd. be renewed by the Superintendent of Motor Carriers for the current and immediately preceding motor carrier licence-year forthwith, upon the company complying with the
usual general licensing and insurance requirements.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
65-77
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 in the Matter of an
Application of Motrux Transportation Ltd. Published as No. 1098a for Alteration to
Existing Motor Carrier Licence Authority
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated this 30th day of May 1977.
ORDER
Having considered the information gained by staff investigations of the application of
Motrux Transportation Ltd. and the information gained at the hearing of the application, which
commenced on May 2, 1977, the Commission finds that:
There was convincing evidence before the Commission that the amount of feed grain which
will in future be available for transport by truck (rather than by railway) in western Canada
will be substantially increased because of changes in the terms of "agreed charge" agreements
of the national railways.
There was convincing evidence to the testimony of witnesses at the hearing that the applicant company had, under the licence authority already held by them, provided a satisfactory
2
 10 MOTOR CARRIER ACT
service to the specific shippers for whom they were entitled to transport freight, and that the
applicant company was fit, willing, and able to conduct the type of expanded truck transportation
services contemplated by their application.
The evidence proffered by the protestants that the expanded service proposed by the
applicant would inevitably result in the operations of the applicant becoming uneconomic was
not convincing.
The granting of the enlarged authority sought by the applicant would not reduce the
profitability of the operations of existing carrier objectors so as to render their operations, in the
transport of similar freight traffic, uneconomic to the extent that the availability of dependable
truck transportation services to the shipping public would be impaired.
The Commission hereby orders that the application of Motrux Transportation Ltd.,
published at No. 1098a as described in a notice of hearing in this matter dated January 12, 1977,
be and it is hereby granted.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits of $50 each paid by the
applicant and the objectors to the application be refunded.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  36-77
In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 196.0, Chap. 252, and the Energy Act, S3.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 of Oldham's Transport Ltd. for Alteration to Existing
Motor Carrier Licence Authority Published as No. 2717-75 and in the Matter of a Requirement that Oldham's Transport Show Cause Why the Whole of the Licence Authority
Issued to That Company Should Not Be Cancelled
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner
Dated this 25th day of April 1977.
ORDER
Whereas by formal order dated November 18, 1976, the Motor Carrier Commission, inter
alia, provided that the operations of Oldham's Transport Ltd. should be closely supervised by
the Superintendent of Motor Carriers for a period of four months from the date of that order
and that the Superintendent should report to the Commission on that carrier's compliance with
the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and regulations thereunder during that period; and
Whereas the Commission fixed April 4, 1977, as the date on which the Commission would
require Oldham's Transport Ltd. to again appear before them to show cause why an application
for alteration to licence authority filed by that company and published at No. 2717-75 should
not be refused; and further to show cause why the whole of the licence authority issued to that
company should not be cancelled; and
Whereas these matters came on for hearing before the Commission at Vancouver commencing at 10 o'clock on Monday, April 4, 1977:
The Commission, after considering what was alleged at the hearing by the applicant
through counsel and by the qualified objectors as of record who though calling no witnesses
cross-examined the applicant's witnesses and presented argument through counsel, found
(a) that there was no evidence that the applicant carrier, Oldham's Transport Ltd.,
had not complied strictly with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and
regulations thereunder during the period from November 18, 1976, to the date
of the hearing;
(6) that no evidence was called, either at the first hearing of this matter held in
October 1976 or at the present continuation thereof, that would tend to establish
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
11
that the granting of the expanded licence authority sought by Oldham's Transport
Ltd. (a long established motor carrier) would make the operations of the
protesting carriers not economically viable;
(c) that there is no sound regulatory foundation for the establishment of a principle
that infractions of the Motor Carrier Act committed by a carrier should in
themselves be an absolute bar to that carrier subsequently being granted an
enlarged operating authority;
(d) that no convincing facts were brought out at the hearing which established to the
satisfaction of the Commission that the applicant carrier, Oldham's Transport
Ltd., was not in a financial sense a fit carrier to be licensed or to be granted an
enlargement of its existing licence authority.
The Commission, having come to the previously mentioned conclusions, hereby orders that
(1) the application published as No. 2717-75 of Oldham's Transport Ltd. for alteration to that company's existing licence authority (as described in the original
notice of hearing in this matter dated July 30, 1976) be and it is hereby granted;
(2) the Superintendent of Motor Carriers supervise the operations of Oldham's
Transport Ltd. for a period of six months from the date of this order as to that
carrier's compliance with the provisions of the Motor Carrier Act and the regulations thereunder and report thereon periodically in writing to the Commission.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
66-77
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 an Application by Coast Ferries Limited for Alteration to Existing Motor Carrier
Licence Authority Published as No. 2303a
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, and Gerard M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 3rd day of June 1977.
ORDER
The application herein was for alteration of all Class 1X1 Public Freight vehicle licences by
the Commission to Coast Ferries Limited and consisted of two parts as follows:
Commodities to Be
Carried
General freight, restricted to
freight which has been assigned to Coast Ferries Limited for transport by barge
(charter trips).
2. General freight.
For Whom to Be
Carried
One individual or
company only at
any one time.
Any  individual   or
company.
Area, Territory, or Route
From Vancouver and points situated
within a distance of 45 road miles
thereof delivered to Vancouver for
furtherance by barge to Powell River
and thence for subsequent delivery to
points within a distance of 10 road
miles from Powell River, including
Texada Island; and vice versa.
From Vancouver and 45 road miles
therefrom delivered to Powell River
and 10 road miles thereof and including Texada Island; or vice versa.
 12
MOTOR CARRIER ACT
Restrictions re Clause 2:
Only one round trip per week, such trip to be in lieu of any one of our publicly scheduled
barge voyages.
Outbound from Vancouver—No freight shall be picked up after leaving Vancouver
Terminal area as defined. No freight shall be delivered until reaching points within 10 miles
from Powell River.
Outbound from Powell River—No freight shall be picked up after leaving Powell River
Terminal as defined. No freight shall be delivered until reaching points within 10 road miles
from Vancouver.
The Commission will, therefore, deal with the application in two parts.
The first part of the application is identical to the authority already held by the applicant
with the exception of "vice versa", which is asked to be included.
In fact, the applicant since attaining the original authority has been operating as if the
vice versa were included in its authority.
The actions of the applicant in operating in this manner were done openly and the
Commission accepts the evidence of the applicant's general manager that the applicant was at
all times of the opinion that it had the right to the backhaul.
There was no evidence that truckers competing on the same route ever complained of the
applicant's actions of backhauling on its route prior to this application.
The applicant's authority without the vice versa would obviously be an uneconomic one.
And as the applicant has over the years operated this backhaul service alongside of its competitors in the area while its present competitors increased their earnings, we do not feel the
refusal of the backhaul to be in the public interest, but would only tend to destroy the
applicant's business, which has been servicing the public need.
This is not to be construed as an invitation to truckers to enter the field illegally and then
have their actions blessed by the Commission.
This was an obviously innocent mistake by the applicant, which mistake 'was not noticed
by the competitors nor the Motor Carrier Branch. And during the years the applicant served
a portion of the public which came to rely on the applicant's service.
As to the second part of the application, the Commission is of the opinion that the route in
question is one of a very delicate balance. Because of the difficulties experienced by truckers
in servicing the area, several firms have over the years found it impossible to survive and have
withdrawn their services to the shipping public.
Increased competition to the firms presently providing a service to the public in the area,
by allowing a further service as requested in part two of the application, could quite possibly
cause the present carriers, which include scheduled freight carriers to have to cancel then-
services, which the shipping public have come to rely on, to the detriment of the public. And
the public interest is what the Commission must concern itself with.
The Commission, therefore, grants part one of the application and denies part two of the
application.
The Commission hereby orders that part one of the application be and is hereby granted.
The Commission further orders that part two of the application be and is hereby refused.
It is further ordered that the security deposits of $50 each paid by the applicant and
objectors to the application be refunded.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
13
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  71-77
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 International Transport Inc. of Rochester, Minnesota, for Alteration to Existing Motor Carrier Licence Authority Published as No. 534
Before Stuart DEVrrr, Commissioner and Deputy Chairman, and Gerard M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 12th day of July 1977. ORDER
Whereas the application of International Transport Inc. for an alteration to that company's
existing motor carrier licence authority, which application was published as No. 534 and was
described in the notice of hearing thereof dated April 12, 1977, came on for hearing on
Wednesday, June 1, 1977; and
Whereas at the commencement of the hearing the applicant amended its application in
certain particulars; and
Whereas upon the hearing having proceeded on the basis of the application as originally
amended and being reconvened after the noon-hour the applicant further amended its application; and
Whereas following on the second amendment to the application all the qualified objectors
to the application present at the hearing—Triangle Express Ltd., Davinder Freightways Ltd.,
and Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, each represented by Counsel L. R. Peterson, Q.C.; and
Commercial Truck Co. Ltd., represented by Ronald Bligh, a company official—stated that they
withdrew their objection to the application as now amended; and
Whereas it was agreed by all parties that the hearing should at this point be adjourned
sine die so that the applicant could prepare a formal draft of the exact wording of the application as amended, submit that draft to the opposing parties for scrutiny and then file the draft
with the Commission; and
Whereas it was further agreed that the applicant could if it wished make further representations in support of its application as amended to the Commission without reference to the other
parties; and
Whereas it was agreed that if the draft wording of the application as amended met the
satisfaction of the opposing parties no further hearing proceedings in this matter would be
required; and
Whereas the Commission has been provided with a final wording of the application of
International Transport Inc. as amended, which wording has been concurred with by the
other parties to the hearing and reads as follows:
Kind of Freight or
Class of Passengers
1. Lumber and wood products,
including plywood and laminated beams.
2. Iron and steel products.
3. Charter trips from the B.C./
Alberta border to the B.C./
Yukon border and vice versa,
pick-up and delivery within
the Province prohibited, corridor authority only, and
charter trips from the B.C./
U.S. border to the B.C/Yu-
kon border and vice versa,
pick-up and delivery within
the Province of British Columbia prohibited, corridor
authority only.
4. Iron and steel products (charter trips).
For Whom to Be
Carried
For any one individual or company
at a time, charter
trips only.
For any individual
or   company   at  a
time, charter trips
only.
Area, Route, or Territory
to Be Served
From any point within British Columbia to the B.C./U.S. border.
From any point in British Columbia
to the B.C./U.S. border and vice versa.
Davis,    Walker
Company.
From B.C./U.S. border transported to
any point in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
 14
MOTOR CARRIER ACT
Restrictions re Clauses 1 and 2:
Pick up of freight in British Columbia for delivery to the States of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, and/or California or vice versa not permitted.
The Commission, after considering the information gained by staff investigations of the
application of International Transport Inc., the representations made at the hearing of the
application, the amendments made thereto at that hearing and certain subsequent written
representations by the applicant respecting the amended application, has concluded that the
application as amended should in substance be approved.
The Commission therefore orders that an alteration to the motor carrier licence authority
of International Transport Inc., pursuant to its amended application, be granted, by adding
thereto the following authorities and attendant restrictions:
Commodities to Be For Whom to Be
Carried Carried
Lumber and wood products,      For one individual
or company only
at any one time.
For one individual
or company only
at any one time.
Davis, Walker &
Company.
including plywood and laminated beams (charter trips).
2. Iron and steel products (charter trips).
3. Iron and steel products (charter trips).
Area, Route, or Territory
From any point in British Columbia
delivered to the B.C./U.S. border.
4. General   freight    (charter
trips).
For one individual
or company only
at any one time.
From any point in British Columbia
delivered to B.C./U.S. border or vice
versa.
From any point in British Columbia
delivered to B.C./U.S. border or vice
versa.
From B.C/Alberta border transported
through British Columbia to the B.C./
Yukon border; or vice versa, also from
B.C./U.S. border transported through
British Columbia to the B.C/Yukon
' border;   or vice  versa   (corridor ser
vices only).
Restrictions re Clauses 1 and 2:
1. No freight which originates at or is destined to points in the States of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, or California shall be transported under the authority granted by these clauses.
2. Pick up of freight in British Columbia for delivery in British Columbia not permitted.
Restriction re Clause 3:
Pick up of freight in British Columbia for delivery in British Columbia not permitted.
Restriction re Clause 4:
Pick up of freight or delivery of freight in British Columbia not permitted.
By the Commission:
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner and Deputy Chairman
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
15
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
77-77
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 All Licences Issued by the Motor Carrier Commission of British Columbia Pursuant to
the Said Act and in the Name of Robert Arnold Zeiger
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 13th day of October 1977.
ORDER
Whereas it has appeared that Robert A. Zeiger having failed to comply with the provisions
of the Motor Carrier Act and the regulations made under that Act in respect of payment of
fees; and
Whereas Robert A. Zeiger was duly notified of the date, time, and place of a hearing
whereat he might show cause why all licences issued to him by the Commission should not be
cancelled; and
Whereas the said Robert A. Zeiger failed to appear at the said hearing and otherwise
failed to show cause why all licences issued to him by the Commission should not be cancelled:
The Commission hereby orders that all licences issued to and in the name of Robert A.
Zeiger be and they are hereby cancelled.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
78-77
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 in the Matter of the
Reconsideration by the Motor Carrier Commission of That Commission's Decision Granting the Application of L-B-S Livestock Transport Ltd. for Alteration to Its Existing Motor
Carrier Licence Authority, Which Application was Published as No. 2110 Under the Date
of February 3, 1976
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner.
Dated this 27th day of October 1977.
ORDER
On June 22, 1976, the Motor Carrier Commission considered the application of L-B-S
Livestock Transport Ltd. for alteration to its motor carrier authority which application was
published as No. 2110 under date of February 3, 1976.
Having considered all of the evidence before it, including reports of inspectors with the
Commission's Motor Carrier Branch, letters of objection, and shippers' letters of support, the
Motor Carrier Commission approved the application.
 16
MOTOR CARRIER ACT
The decision of the Commission dated Thursday, June 24, 1976, granting the application
of L-B-S Livestock Transport Ltd. was appealed to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council by
Inland livestock Transport Ltd., W. N. Trucking & Feed Lot Enterprises Ltd., Ray Sponaugle
Hauling Ltd., O.K. Stockliners Ltd., and Walker's Transport Ltd., and was subsequently sent
back to the Motor Carrier Commission by way of a decision of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council dated February 22, 1977, in which the Motor Carrier Commission was ordered to hold
a public hearing for the purpose of reviewing the evidence.
The hearing so ordered was heard by the full Commission on October 12, 1977. The
applicant, L-B-S Livestock, was represented by Scott Hall, barrister and solicitor, and the
several objectors were represented by R. M. L. Blair, barrister and solicitor.
On the whole of the evidence presented at the hearing therein the Commission made the
following findings of fact:
(1) That the principal of the applicant company, L. B. Steil, has been actively
engaged in the trucking of livestock since he was 15 years of age and is now
34 years of age:
(2) That the said Leslie B. Steil is, in the field of livestock trucking, conscientious in
his dealing with shippers of livestock and handles the livestock he carries with
such excellent care as to minimize the effects suffered by animals when being
shipped:
(3) That the applicant company has been operating under the authority which was
the subject of this hearing since it was originally granted on June 24, 1976, and
the shippers who have availed themselves of his services have found the applicant
to have been prompt, efficient, and reliable in supplying his services when
requested:
(4) That of all the witnesses called by the objectors to this application not one gave
evidence against the fitness, willingness, or ability of the applicant to perform
a service for the public:
(5) That although the objectors to this application testified that they were in the
field applied for and could service the shippers' needs, none of the objectors were
able to give any evidence of any effect the applicant's operations had had to date
on any of their companies.
Counsel for the objectors main argument for disallowing the application was that in view
of section 37 of the Motor Carrier Act, the Commission should in order to maintain the present
licensed carriers in a sound economic position, refuse the application.
But this Commission has in previous judgments made clear its interpretation of section 37
of the Motor Carrier Act. This position being that the primary concern of the Commission is
to the public, and the mere fact that a new carrier by his competition may reduce the profits of
the existing carriers is not the test to be applied in deciding on the application. But if the
reduction of revenue to existing carriers were such as to make the continuation of the service
to the public uneconomical, then the new competition should be denied because of the resulting
disadvantage to the public which would likely happen with established carriers going out of
business.
In the present application not only were the objectors unable to give any evidence of any
loss of revenues to them caused by this applicant's operations over the past 16 months, but the
objector appearing for Walker's Transport Ltd. stated that his firm had expanded over the last
three years and he was happy with the loads he was getting.
Having made the previously mentioned findings of fact, we conclude that the original
decision made by this Commission was correct and should stand unaltered.
The Commission hereby confirms its original decision with respect to this application of
L-B-S Livestock Transport Ltd. published as No. 2110 under the date of February 3, 1976.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION 17
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
  81-77
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 of H. M. Trimble & Sons Ltd. for Alteration to Existing
Licence Authorities Published as No. 748; and in the Matter of a Concurrent Application
by Westland Carriers Ltd., a Related Corporation, Published as No. 749 for the Same
Alteration
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 23rd day of November 1977.
ORDER
Whereas the applications of H. M. Trimble & Sons Ltd. and of the related motor carrier
corporation, Westland Carriers Ltd., for alteration to identical portions of the operating
authorities of each were received and made the subject of staff investigations; and
Whereas these investigations indicated that little or no evidence of public need for the
extended service proposed had been produced by the applicants or was otherwise apparent; and
Whereas some concern was expressed by other motor carriers already properly licensed
to perform the services proposed by the applicants, which services basically would enlarge the
applicants' present bulk-hauling commodities from that of the transportation of such commodities in tank-type vehicles to the general transportation in any type of vehicles of "liquids
and all other commodities as are loose in mass, neither packaged nor in units of sufficient size
to be handled piece by piece," as to the implications of the applications and the effects which
might result from the granting thereof:
The Commission therefore set down the applications for a public hearing.
At the hearing, which was held on Monday, November 7, 1977, no qualified motor carrier
objecting to the granting of the applications appeared before the Commission to formally oppose
the applications; however, a number of interested parties did appear at the hearing as
nonparticipating observers.
The applicants gave evidence at the hearing in support of their applications through
the testimony of the applicants' British Columbia Regional Manager, Gerald L. Perks.
Basically, this evidence indicated that the applicants were, in the opinion of the regional
manager, somewhat handicapped as bulk haulers by the fact that their authorities in this regard
authorized only the transportation of liquids and dry flowable materials in tank-type vehicles
when they were competing with other licensed motor carriers duly licensed for the haulage of
some bulk commodities, examples of these commodities being ore concentrates, coal, and
sulphur.
The applicants' witness also introduced evidence that certain other regulatory jurisdictions
had granted to these applicants motor carrier authorities authorizing transport of "commodities
in bulk" or "bulk commodities" without specific reference to tank or other types of vehicles.
When questioned, the witness was uncertain as to the exact limitations of these wordings
and was also uncertain as to the precise limitations which would be achieved by using the
authority wording proposed in the applications under consideration.
The applicants' witness produced no evidence of shipper need for their proposed extended
services, either through the testimony of shipper witnesses given at the hearing or otherwise.
Under questioning by the Commission, the applicants' witness was unable to illustrate any
instances of pressing shipper need which had arisen in past months for the applicants' proposed
extended services. Further, the witness gave no evidence of shipper need for these extended
authorities arising out of inadequacies in the services of other motor carriers now duly
licensed to perform such services.
Having considered the information gained by staff investigations of the applications of
H. M. Trimble & Sons Ltd. and Westland Carriers Ltd., and information gained at the
public hearing of those applicants, the Commission finds as a fact that the applicants, although
making representations' designed to explain their desires as motor carriers for requesting the
expanded operating authorities which they sought, failed to present any significant evidence
that the needs of the public in general or the shipping public in particular would be served or
convenienced by the granting of the expanded authorities sought.
 18
MOTOR CARRIER ACT
The Commission therefore hereby orders that the applications of H. M. Trimble & Sons
Ltd. and Westland Carriers Ltd., published as Nos. 748 and 749, be and they are hereby refused.
The Commission further orders that the applicants be assessed hearing costs in the amount
of $100 each, payable forthwith; the sum of $50 as paid by each applicant as security deposit
with respect to the hearing to be set off against this assessment of costs.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
82-77
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 C. & H. Transportation Co. Inc. of Dallas, Texas,
for Alteration to Existing Motor Carrier Licence Authority Published as No. 1067a
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 6th day of December 1977.
ORDER
Whereas the application of C. & H. Transportation Co. Inc. for an alteration to that
company's existing motor carrier licence authority, which application was published as No.
1067a and was described in the notice of hearing thereof dated September 9, 1977, came on
for hearing on Monday, November 21, 1977; and
Whereas at the commencement of the hearing it was established that the applicant
was represented by R. W. Macdonald, as counsel, and the following qualified objectors, Hill &
Hill Transport of Canada Ltd., Hill & Hill Incorporated, Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines, were
represented by L. R. Peterson, Q.C., as counsel; H. M. Trimble & Sons Ltd. was represented by
Scott Hines, sales co-ordinator; and Glenncoe Transport Ltd. was represented by Glenn Coe,
general manager of the company; and
Whereas counsel for Hill & Hill Transport of Canada Ltd. and Hill & Hill Incorporated
withdrew the objections of his clients; and
Whereas counsel for the applicant asked leave to amend the application in the following
manner:
(a) to number the clauses in the application consecutively as 1, 2, 3, 4 (a, b, c, d);
(6) to exclude freight originating in or destined to the States of Washington, Oregon,
and California from all clauses;
(c) to exclude the transport of bulk commodities in tank-type vehicles from clauses
3 and 4;
(rf) to exclude freight originating in or destined to the States of Idaho and Montana
from clause 1; and
Whereas the Commission approved the amendments and Mitchell Bros. Truck Lines and
H. M. Trimble & Sons Ltd. withdrew their objections, the hearing proceeded on the application
as amended.
The application was supported by a large number of written statements from shippers.
In addition, a significant number of shippers gave evidence during the hearing. On the whole
of the evidence the Commission made the following findings:
(1) That  under the  system of  nonresident permits  which had  existed  prior to
February 16, 1976, which authorized a carrier to make two trips per vehicle per
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
19
year in the Province without special proof of need, the applicant had, due to the
size of its vehicle fleet, transported freight into and out of British Columbia for
many shippers to their complete satisfaction, but had for the last year been
prevented from doing so directly by a change in the permit law which limited
such operations to six permits per carrier per year:
(2) That the authority applied for was to enable the applicant to continue to provide
service to shippers who had used and wished to continue using the services of the
applicant:
(3) That the applicant offered a specialized service, using equipment designed to meet
the specific needs of certain shippers:
(4) That the applicant's service was prompt, reliable, and included excellent care in
handling of shipments of delicate and sophisticated machinery:
(5) That interlining with other carriers was, in many cases, most unsatisfactory to
shippers and, in fact, a number of shippers had a strict policy requiring direct
service only:
(6) That in all respects the applicant was fit, willing and able to provide the service
applied for by its application.
The Commission, after considering the information gained by staff investigations of the
application of C. & H. Transportation Co. Inc., the representations made at the hearing of the
application, the amendments made thereto at that hearing, and the objections of Glencoe
Transport Ltd., has concluded that the application as amended should in substance be approved.
The Commission therefore orders that an alteration to the licence authority of C. & H.
Transportation Co. Inc. on its amended application be granted, by adding thereto the following
authorities and attendant restrictions:
1. Heavy machinery, heavy machinery parts,     Any  individual <
any company.
Heavy machinery, heavy machinery parts,
and commodities other than heavy machinery, the transportation of which because of size and weight requires the use
of special equipment, and parts of such
commodities when moving in connection
therewith.
Self-propelled articles, each weighing
15,000 pounds or more, and related machinery, tools, parts, and supplies moving
in connection therewith.
Machinery, equipment, materials, and
supplies, used in, or in connection with,
the discovery, development, production,
refining, manufacture, processing, storage,
transmission, and distribution of natural
gas and petroleum and their products and
by-products and/or water.
Earth drilling machinery and equipment,
and machinery equipment, materials, supplies, and pipe incidental to, used in, or
in connection with
(a) the transportation, installation, removal, operation, repair, servicing,
maintenance, and dismantling of
drilling machinery and equipment;
(6) the completion of holes or wells
drilled;
(c) the production, storage, and transmission of commodities resulting
from drilling operations at well or
hole sites; and,
(*0 the injection or removal of commodities into or from holes or wells.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
Any individual
any company.
Any  individual
any company.
Any individual
any company.
Any individual
any company.
Any individual
any company.
Any individual
any company.
Any  individual
any company.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
From B.C/U.S. border
delivered to points in British Columbia, or vice
versa.
 20
MOTOR CARRIER ACT
Restrictions:
General—-Pick up of freight in British Columbia for delivery in British Columbia not
permitted.
Clause 1—No freight which originates in or is destined to the States of Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, and Montana shall be transported under the authority granted by
this clause.
Clause 2—No freight which originates in or is destined to the States of Washington,
Oregon, or California shall be transported under the authority granted by this clause.
Clause 3—No freight which originates in or is destined to the States of Washington,
Oregon, or California shall be transported under the authority granted by this clause.
The transport of any bulk commodities in a tank-type vehicle is prohibited.
Clause 4 (a, b, c, d)—No freight which originates in or is destined to the States of Washington, Oregon, or California shall be transported under authority granted by this clause.
Tne transport of any bulk commodities in a tank-type vehicle is prohibited.
The Commission further orders that the security deposits of $50 each paid by the
applicant and the objectors to the application be refunded.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
1-78
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 a Request of Robert Stefanson for Reconsideration of a Decision of the Motor Carrier
Commission Refusing the Application Published as No. 1557/77 for Motor Carrier Licensing Authority
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated the 9th day of January 1978.
ORDER
Whereas the Motor Carrier Commission, after considering the application of Robert
Stef anson for motor carrier licence authority which was published as No. 1557/77 and what
was disclosed by staff investigations of that application, refused the application; and
Whereas Robert Stefanson, through his counsel, Paul Sabatino, made a formal request
that the Motor Carrier Commission reconsider its decision with respect to his application; and
Whereas the Commission, having agreed to reconsider its decision with respect to the
application advised the applicant, Robert Stefanson, and the objecting carrier, Wholesale
Delivery Service (1972) Ltd., that farther representations by these parties would be heard at a
regular Commission meeting on Monday, December 19, 1977; and,
Whereas after considering what was represented to the Commission by the applicant and
the objector and submissions by counsel, Paul Sabatino, for the applicant and Leslie R. Peterson,
Q.C, for the objector, the Commission decided that no change to its original decision should
be made;
The Commission hereby confirms its original decision with respect to the application of
Robert Stefanson, published as No. 1557/77, and refuses that application.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
.   . Commissioner
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
 REPORT OF THE MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION
21
Province of British Columbia
Motor Carrier Commission
3-78
In the Matter of the Motor Carrier Act, R.S.B.C. 1960, Chap. 252, 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 a Request of Neil P. Melgaard for Reconsideration
of a Decision of the Motor Carrier Commission Refusing Part of an Application for Motor
Carrier Licence Authority, Which Application was Published as No. 1213A/77
Before Judge G. Ross Sutherland, Chairman, Stuart DeVitt, Commissioner, and Gerard
M. Morris, Commissioner
Dated this 30th day of January 1978.
ORDER
Whereas the Motor Carrier Commission, after considering the application of Neil P.
Melgaard for motor carrier licence authority, which application was published as No. 1213A/77
and what was disclosed by staff investigations of that application, granted the application in
part but refused those portions of the application which requested the addition to the carrier's
licence authority of the privilege of providing transportation services as follows:
Commodities to Be
Carried
LUMBER:
Destined to all points in Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
BRICKS:
Originating in all points in Alberta.
BRICKS:
Originating from all points in
Alberta.
LUMBER:
Destined for all points in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
For Whom to Be
Carried
Federated Co-operatives Ltd.
OK Builders Centre.
Steel Bros. Canada
Ltd.
Silver Tree  Holdings.
Area, Route, or Territory
From  licensed  districts   1,  2,  and  6
transported to the B.C/Alberta border.
From the B.C/Alberta border delivered to points in licensed districts 4, 5,
6, and 7.
Destined to all points in licensed districts 14, 14a, and 15 in British Columbia.
From licensed districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7, 8, 14, 14a, and 15 transported to
the B.C/Alberta border.
Whereas Neil P. Melgaard made a formal request through counsel that the Motor Carrier
Commission reconsider its decision with respect to those portions of his application which were
refused; and
Whereas the Commission, having agreed to reconsider its decision with respect to the
application, has, after reviewing the matter in the light of the representations of the applicant,
decided that no change to its original decision should be made.
The Commission hereby confirms its original decision and refuses those parts of the
application of Neil P. Melgaard described herein.
By the Commission:
Judge G. Ross Sutherland
Chairman
Stuart DeVitt
Commissioner
Gerard M. Morris
Commissioner
250-179-7843
Printed by K. M. MacDonald, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty
in right of the Province of British Columbia.
1979

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/cdm.bcsessional.1-0378746/manifest

Comment

Related Items