Supreme Court appeal of taxicab bylaw ruling eyed

“So, unfortunately, we’re now in the situation where we need to look at appealing to the Supreme Court,” he said. The appellants have 60 days from the date the court of appeal’s decision was made to file an application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Basaria’s suit alleged that the City did not follow procedure as outlined in The Cities Act when it passed the bylaw. As well, the suit alleged that the City overstepped its bylaw-making powers, claiming the bylaw regulates the sale of alcohol, a power that is within the province’s jurisdiction.

However, the appeals court found it was “plain” that council was right to act as it did and the process it followed is as outlined by The Cities Act. The lawsuit took issue with the change of wording of the bylaw between the three readings and council’s decision to have all three readings at one meeting.

The appeals court sided with the Court of Queen’s Bench judge’s ruling that the wording change didn’t alter the “essential character” of the bylaw – as in, it didn’t fundamentally change the meaning.

“It is clear to me the revisions were aimed at including taxicab owners so as to facilitate the prohibition as it applied to taxicab drivers, because both of those groups were recognised as classes of persons under the taxicab bylaw,” wrote Caldwell on behalf of the court.

According to Abrametz, the facts contained in the court of appeal decision differed from those in the Queen’s Bench decision and they can’t both be correct.

In particular, he points to the description of the change made to the taxicab bylaw between readings, which is crux of the appeal.

Abrametz said the court’s reading of the bylaw change (in the seventh paragraph) differed from that of the Court of Queen’s Bench judge (in the 12th paragraph). He pointed out the original text included a prohibition on transporting passengers through an off-sale drive-thru liquor outlet.

“And it was a prohibition first of all on buying booze, secondly on transporting passengers,” he said. “I think we are going to appeal to the Supreme Court and the issue is: can the City regulate the sale of alcohol? … Secondly, is it a wise decision to prohibit taxicab drivers from transporting passengers that are purchasing alcohol when the alternative is people driving and buying alcohol? Which seems to me unwise and dangerous, even.”

He said the other issue one of fairness: there were three readings of the bylaw in one night, with what he said is a “material” change.

“And I don’t think the law allows that.”

The exact wording of the particular clause pertaining to readings in The Cities Act that he referenced is: “A proposed bylaw must not have more than two readings at a council meeting unless the members of council present unanimously agree to consider third reading.”

Caldwell found that while council didn’t have unanimous agreement to consider all three readings of the bylaw at the same meeting, the issue didn’t arise because council didn’t see the circumstances as falling within that particular section of the act.

The appeals court also weighed in on whether council was within its jurisdiction to pass this particular bylaw. The court ruled that it was, as the intent of the bylaw was not intended to regulate the sale of alcohol.

“Rather it seems to me, council’s objective is and was always – in pith and substance – to regulate the taxicab business so as to mitigate the safety risks to taxicab operators arising from their patrons’ use of drive-thru off-sale liquor outlets,” Caldwell wrote.

Mayor Greg Dionne called the appeals court ruling important for two reasons: it confirmed council’s right to pass bylaws and to enforce them.

He said there was “some personal innuendo” about himself and council acting out of a vendetta or a mission.

“But we didn’t. We were acting on complaints from taxi drivers that were threatened going through that (off-sale liquor store drive thrus). And we had a solution by banning it.”

Dionne said the courts found that council acted fairly, which was the part of the ruling that made him happiest.

He said this court case has not affected relations with Basaria, who is partnering with the City in another development in Prince Albert. This new development has already been approved to proceed.

Dionne reiterated that the bylaw amendment was never about being vindictive towards the National Hotel.

“It was about the safety of our residents and our taxi drivers and that’s what it was about.”

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames

by Thia James

Supreme Court appeal of taxicab bylaw ruling eyed

What's Trending