City loses bid to ban ride-sharing service,
‘Deeply disappointed’ cabbies plan to continue their fight
The city has lost its bid to ban Uber from operating in Toronto.
In a decision handed down late Friday, Superior Court Judge Sean Dunphy rejected its request for an injunction, ruling that the California-based company does not need a licence to operate under current bylaws.
The act of ordering a ride with the Uber smartphone app is automated and involves software downloaded ahead of time, Dunphy ruled, so drivers don’t “accept” communication from passengers. Accepting calls to arrange transportation does require a licence but “Uber does not do that,” his 30-page ruling finds.
The iTaxiworkers Association, a major taxi drivers’ union, said it was “deeply disappointed” with the ruling.
“This will continue to hurt the front line drivers and the taxi industry. We urge City Council to take immediate measures to ensure fairness for the 10,000 licensed taxi drivers of the City,” wrote Amarjeet Kaur Chhabra, the union’s executive director, in an email.
Uber Canada general manager Ian Black called the decision “a great win for the 5,000 drivers who need this flexible earning opportunity to make a living, and the 300,000 riders who rely on them” in an emailed statement. The mayor’s office said it would invite representatives from both sides in for a meeting to seek “mutually agreeable solutions for the city’s ground transportation network.”
Uber, which began operating in Toronto in 2012, had steadfastly insisted it was merely a technology company linking riders with drivers and did not need to be regulated. Taxi companies and the city of Toronto argued that Uber was acting like a taxi brokerage.
During the hearing, Uber’s lawyer Julie Rosenthal argued that Uber doesn’t actually dispatch taxis, with much of her argument hinging on the definition of “accept,” as in accept a ride.
But city lawyer Michele Wright disputed the argument, noting Uber continues to find a driver if the first one rejects it, so it is in the business of dispatching drivers.
Dunphy’s ruling found that if that qualified as accepting communication, “Such a definition would capture any telephone carrier since they are in the business of connecting calls and some of the calls they connect are certainly to request a taxicab or limousine transportation.” With files from Vanessa Lu and Betsy Powell