AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1937 (2) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as to the rates, tolls, and charges which it can make and exact, which must be in exact accordance with filed schedules open to public inspection, and these schedules must remain unchanged until altered, reduced, or modified as provided by the Act (Sections 14 and 15). Section 16 is in the following terms: No public utility shall charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less compensation for any service than is prescribed in such schedules as are alt the time established, or demand, collect, or receive any rates, tolls, or charges not specified in such schedules. 2. By Section 18 it is provided that any public utility company charging or receiving a greater or less compensation for any service rendered than that prescribed as provided by the Act is guilty of "unjust discrimination"; which is thereby prohibited, and is made liable to a penalty. By Section 19 no person, firm or corporation shall knowingly solicit, accept or receive any rebate, concession or discrimination in respect to any service in, or affecting or relating to, any public utility whereby any such service is by any device whatsoever, or otherwise, rendered free or at a less rate than th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e meter, and they from time to time paid to the appellants the amounts shown by such statements. V 6. The respondents used the amounts so . paid as part of their cost of manufacture of butter, ice cream and other milk products in determining the cost of manufacture for the purpose of fixing the price so to be paid for the said cream, and the respondents did base thereon the amount which they paid to the farmers and others for the said cream. 7. The mistake in rendering the said statements showing incorrect amounts to be due was the mistake of the appellants. 8. The respondents acted upon the said statements so rendered believing the same to be true. 9. By reason of such belief the respondents paid to the farmers and others large sums of money more than they would or could have paid for the said cream if the amounts now claimed for electric energy had been rendered to and claimed from the respondents at the several times when the said statements were rendered by the appellants. 4. These remarkable facts, involving as they do the long-continued undercharging of the appellants to so serious an extent, are to some extent explained by the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Baxter, J. and Grim-mer, Ag. C. J. on the second of the two grounds above stated, Le Blanc, J. intimating a doubt as to whether the result might not have been different if negligence on the part of the present appellants (which had not been pleaded) had been alleged. When the matter came on appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada another view was taken, and Dysart, J. delivered the judgment of the Court (concurred in by Duff, C. J. and Lamont, Cannon and Davis, JJ.) deciding both the contentions in favour of the present respondents and therefore accepting the plea of estoppel, with the result that the appeal was allowed and the judgment reversed and set aside with costs in all the Courts. In the view of their Lordships, assisted by able and exhaustive arguments by counsel on both sides, the two points are of considerable difficulty and importance. It will be convenient to deal in the first place with the contention based on the statute. The problem cannot; be more admirably stated than Dysart, J. He said: Applied to the present case, the Act imposes a duty on the electric company to charge, and on the dairy company to pay, at scheduled rates, for all the electric cur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if a voluntary release will not put an end to the obligation of the respondents, an inadvertent mistake by the appellants acted upon by the respondents can have the result of absolving the appellants from their duty of collecting and receiving payment in accordance with the law. To collect the money due will, in one sense, cause loss or injury to the respondents, to the extent of $1,931.82. Their Lordships do not know, because the admission (No. 9 above) does not cover the point, whether to allow the estoppel will not leave the respondents with an advantage consisting of the difference between the sum of $1,931.82 and the total amount by which the respondents were led to increase their payments of cream to farmers and others. It is however clear that to disallow the estoppel will leave the respondents out of pocket to the extent of the increased amounts just referred to. It is an unfortunate result; but the obligation to obey a positive law is more compelling than a duty not to cause injury to another by inadvertence. In the present case it may be observed that the injury is not a cause of action. Their Lordships are unable to see how the Court can admit an estoppel which would ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r want of registration. Various points were involved, but it is to be noted that Lord Atkin (then Atkin, L. J.) at p. 97 remarked: Whatever the principle may be (referring to a contention as regards approbation and reprobation), it appears to me that it does not apply to this case, for it seems to me well established that . it is impossible in law for a person to allege any kind of principle which precludes him from alleging the invalidity of that which the statute has, on grounds of general public policy, enacted shall be invalid. 10. A statement made by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in a case, Bradshaw v. M'Mullan (1920) 2 IR 412 at p. 425, supports the same view. It should be added that as regards estoppel by deed it was long ago held that if the deed were executed in contravention of a statute there could be no estoppel. The leading case is Doe d. Chandler v. Ford (1835) 3 Ad & Ell 649. The Supreme Court appears to have attached great, if not decisive, weight to the decisions of English Courts in relation to the Companies Acts and in particular in relation to the effect of Section 25, Companies Act, 1867. That unfortunate section led to much injustice and was finally....