A KENNETH THOMPSON

aan THOMPSON & McCONNELL WILLIAM G. MrconrEt

White Rock M. HOWARD THOMAS
ATTENTION: .
' BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS NORMAN CG. M, COLLINGWOOD
Mr . Thompson . ANDREW J. MeCONKEY
MICHAEL A. PARSONS

OUR FILE NO.
PATRICIA L. GAY

0620.440 ALAN R.ADLEM

DATE:

18 September 1979

Attention: I. D. Pollock,
City Administrator,
The Corporation of the
City of Port Coquitlam,
2272 McAllister Avenue,
PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. V3C 2A8

Dear Sirs:

Re: Noise Control - C.P.R. Yards and Crossings

Pursuant to your instructions, we have reviewed the submitted
material and the following is submitted. for your consideration:

1. While Section 248 of the Federal "Railway Act" and
Similar provisions in Section 192(2) of ‘the B.C.
"Railway Act" refer to by-laws of urban Munici-
palities which prohibit the sounding of whistles
and bells at double crossings, there does not appear
to be any provision in either Statute which gives the
Municipality the actual authority to enact such a by-
law. With the exception of Section 870(c) which gives
authority to pass by-laws regulating noise, there does
not appear to be any provision in the "Municipal Act"
authorizing the enactment of a by-law prohibiting the
sounding of whistles or bells by railway engines and
in view of the provisions of the B.C. "Railway Act" it
would appear that everything relating to railways in
the province is an “occupied field" so far as Munici-
palities are concerned and that the Municipality has
absolutély no jurisdiction over them. Thus it seems
unlikely that such a by-law, if challenged, would be
upheld; however, since both Railway Acts have at least
referred to such by~laws and since the C.T.C. has laid
down procedures for approving such by-laws it is un-
likely that any by-law, once approved by the C.1.C.,
would be challenged by the railway.

Continued page 2

© 18240 THRIFT AVENUE HOX 100, WHITE ROCK, BG V4 429 TELEPHONE: G3l-isat

* 4005 CAMDIE STREET VANGOUVER, O.C. VS2 #x*D TELEPHONE: 874-5207