City “kept a tight grip on who could operate in the taxi industry” says Conway opening statement

The text below is excerpted from the opening statement presented by Tom Conway, Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the Metro Taxi vs City of Ottawa court case which began its hearing on January 4th, 2023. The complete opening statement is posted at the bottom of this article.

*****

A significant part of the regulatory history in the taxi industry is that the City has consistently

tightly controlled who can participate in the industry. Only licensed brokers, plate owners, and

licensed drivers could operate legally in the industry.

The City prohibited anyone else from doing so. For years, the City enforced the by-laws to stop

what it called, “bandit cabs,” and unlicensed brokers from operating. The City investigated these

unlawful operators, charged them, and ensured that the illegal taxi services were stopped. In

many instances, the City’s enforcement efforts were done in cooperation with members in the

taxi industry. Up until 2014, the City kept a tight grip on who could operate in the taxi industry

and made sure that any illegal activity was stopped.

Things started to change when Uber began operating illegally in Ottawa in or around 2014. The

City knew about Uber. You will hear that key City staff heard about Uber’s entry into the market

at a conference for taxi regulators a few years prior to 2014.

The City knew that the services that Uber supplied were no different than the services that

brokers provided in Ottawa, namely, dispatching vehicles for hire. They also knew that the

services that Uber drivers provided were the same services that taxi drivers provided, namely,

transporting passengers in private vehicles from one location to another. The City would have

also known about Uber and what it does, because Uber had already started operations in Toronto

in 2012.

The City knew that Uber’s operations in Ottawa were illegal. Senior staff made public statements

to the effect that Uber had to obtain the required license to operate legally. Uber never did obtain

the required license, and its drivers never did, either.

Given the history of enforcing the by-law and the cooperation between the City and the taxi

industry in ensuring that not only those who were licensed could operate in the industry, there

was a reasonable expectation based on generations of regulation that the City would do the same

thing with Uber. But it never did. While the City did some enforcement against Uber drivers,

which led to a few charges against them, it did not take any steps at all to enforce the by-law

against Uber and its entities.

Not only did the City not enforce the by-law against Uber or implement any meaningful

enforcement against the drivers, it also rejected assistance from the taxi industry. In one instance,

the City rejected information that was collected about Uber drivers. The result was that from

2014 to 2016, Uber and its drivers did not suffer any real or serious consequences for flouting the

law.

The members of the class collectively bore the brunt of Uber’s illegal conduct. Plate owners

suffered financially because their plates diminished in value and their ability to generate income

from fares was greatly affected. Brokers faced similar issues.

This was the beginning of the breach of the social contract.