Fake facts to avoid plain truths
Politicians, not technology, enabled Uber
“New technologies are enabling companies to sidestep the historical regulatory framework,” reads Gowlings’ final argument submitted to Justice Smith on March 28.
News flash: it was not “new technologies” that allowed Uber to
“sidestep the historical regulatory framework.”
The City of Ottawa allowed Uber to sidestep the historical regulatory framework,
as decided by Justice Smith on May 13, 2026.
Happy Anniversary, Metro Taxi vs City of Ottawa. It’s been 10 years since legal proceedings were launched, and 2 years since the historic “Uber was a bandit taxi company” decision was released.
I would hope that as part of the celebrations, we could commit to giving up the falsehoods that have become the hallmark of the past decade in ground transportation. Unfortunately, listening to lawyers for the City of Ottawa this week, I fear the deceptions will be continued or at least attempted.
Two years ago today, on May 13th 2024, Justice Marc Smith announced his decision that “Uber was a bandit taxi company,” and that “Ottawa was negligent” in not enforcing its own Taxi-by-laws. Uber, Smith could see clearly, was a Taxi company. Picking up paying customers and driving them where they needed to go: a Taxi service, whatever technology it used to dispatch the Vehicle for Hire.
On May 11, 2026, Justice Smith was again hard at work, listening to the arguments but forward by counsel for the plaintiffs, Conway Baxter Wilson; and for the City of Ottawa, Gowlings WLG.
Monday’s arguments were limited to the method which should be used to determine how to distribute the $213 million in damages Justice Smith decided are due to the plaintiffs.
It was depressing and demoralizing to listen to Ottawa’s arguments, meticulously prepared and professionally presented, based upon an obvious omission. Todd Burke of Gowlings for the City of Ottawa delivered a magnum opus of delusional bunk, wasting thousands of words dancing around facts and realities that anyone with eyes in their face and a brain in their heads could see.
Burke repeated numerous times that Ottawa should not be liable for the lifetime loss on plate value which operators experienced when Uber arrived because “The City of Ottawa could not stop Uber from coming, any more than cities around the globe have been able to stop Uber from coming,” was Burke’s main, erroneous point.
Listening to the court proceedings by Zoom (which, I am happy to note, it a FANTASTIC technological advancement in our nation’s justice system), I sighed in relief every time Burke paused to take a breath.
“He’s GOT to be done with that farcical message,” I would think, optimistically. “Anyone listening knows that Ottawa could have solved the whole issue by simply requiring Uber to obey the laws it set for Taxis.”
“New technologies are enabling companies to sidestep the historical regulatory framework,” reads Gowlings’ final argument submitted to Justice Smith on March 28.
“This is opening up the taxi industry to new competition and changing the regulatory environment for the industry. Essentially, since the need to own a taxi license plate in order to provide passenger transportation services is decreasing, the value of the taxi plates are decreasing as well.”
Newsflash: it was not “new technologies” that allowed Uber to “sidestep the historical regulatory framework.” The City of Ottawa allowed Uber to sidestep the historical regulatory framework, as decided by Justice Smith on May 13, 2026.
Ottawa’s former Deputy City Manager Susan Jones stated as much in a 2018 press conference, when she invited Uber to apply for a Taxi brokerage license.
Thank you, Justice Smith and retired Deputy City Manager Susan Jones, for stating the plain, obvious truth even though it’s been an unpopular thing to do over the past decade.
I hope that when we look back from 2036, the Ottawa Taxi operators will have finally received the money Justice Smith says is owed to them, and telling the truth will be popular again.
We can hope.
