2127423 Manitoba Ltd. v. Unicity Taxi Ltd. et al., 2012 MBCA 75

• Judge: Monnin, Steel and Chartier, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: August 07, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2012 MBCA 75;(2012), 280 Man.R.(2d) 292 (CA)

2127423 Man. v. Unicity Taxi Ltd. (2012), 280 Man.R.(2d) 292 (CA);

      548 W.A.C. 292

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AU.002

2127423 Manitoba Ltd. o/a London Limos (applicant/respondent) v. Unicity Taxi Ltd. and Duffy's Taxi (1996) Ltd. (objectors/appellants) and The Taxicab Board (respondent)

(AI 11-30-07556; 2012 MBCA 75)

Indexed As: 2127423 Manitoba Ltd. v. Unicity Taxi Ltd. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, Steel and Chartier, JJ.A.

August 7, 2012.

Summary:

A taxi company applied for additional licences. Two competitors filed objections to the additional licences. The Taxicab Board limited disclosure to the objectors to a one-page summary. The Board refused to disclose any other information, including the company's business plan and other materials filed in support of the application. The Board allowed the company's application in part, granting eight of the 17 licences requested. No written reasons were issued by the Board. The objectors were granted leave to appeal two questions of law: "(1) Did the failure of the Board to provide any information to the objectors, other than a one-page summary, amount to a breach of the duty of fairness and the rules of natural justice? and (2) Did the failure of the Board to provide reasons amount to a breach of the duty of fairness and the rules of natural justice?".

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Board, exercising quasi-judicial powers owed a duty of fairness to the parties to the hearing. The objectors, not parties to the hearing, were not entitled to the same degree of fairness. The limited disclosure provided did not breach the duty of fairness owed to non-parties. Assuming that the Board was required to issue reasons for its decision, the record was an adequate substitute for written reasons and the Board's decision was reasonable.

Administrative Law - Topic 2155

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Effect of failure of tribunal or official to give reasons for decisions (incl. sufficiency of reasons) - A taxi company applied for additional licences - Two competitors filed objections to the additional licences - The Taxicab Board limited disclosure to the objectors to a one-page summary - The Board refused to disclose any other information, including the company's business plan and other materials filed in support of the application - The Board, at a hearing at which the objectors were present and made submissions, allowed the company's application in part, granting eight of the 17 licences requested - No written reasons were issued by the Board - The objectors appealed, submitting that the absence of written reasons breached the duty of fairness owed to them - The objectors initially appealed solely on disclosure grounds and had not requested reasons from the Board - The Manitoba Court of Appeal discussed, without deciding, whether the objectors' failure to request reasons precluded appellate review - Assuming that a non-party to the hearing was entitled to reasons for the decision, the lack of formal written reasons did not constitute a breach of the duty of fairness because "the record acted as a sufficient surrogate for formal, written reasons so that a person could understand the rationale behind the Board's decision" - See paragraphs 38 to 54.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - A taxi company applied for 17 additional licences - Two competitors filed objections - The Taxicab Board provided them with a one-page summary of information, but refused to disclose confidential information, including the company's business plan - Following a hearing at which the objectors were present and made submission, the Board granted eight of the 17 requested licences - No written reasons were provided - The objectors appealed, submitting that the failure to provide them with the business plan breached the duty of fairness owed to them - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Board, which exercised quasi-judicial powers, owed a duty of fairness to the parties to the hearing - The objectors, not parties to the hearing, were not owed the same duty of fairness - The disclosure provided (information on the company's existing contracts and clients, potential contracts and potential marketing strategies) was reasonable - Objectors were not entitled to all of the documents relied on by the Board in making its decision at a hearing the objectors were not parties to - The governing legislation (Taxicab Act) did not mandate disclosure or discuss confidentiality - There was no provisions for objectors, including the Board's obligation to hear from them - It was within the Board's jurisdiction to determine its own rules for hearings, including the terms of an objector's participation - The objectors, as non-parties, were not entitled to make full answer of the company's application - They had "no case that they had to meet" that required full disclosure - The failure to provide the objectors with the business plan did not breach the limited duty of fairness owed to them - See paragraphs 13 to 37.

Administrative Law - Topic 2402

Natural justice - Procedure - General - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2617

Natural justice - Evidence and proof - Disclosure - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9067

Boards and tribunals - Particular boards and tribunals - Provincial or municipal taxicab boards - [See Administrative Law - Topic 2266 ].

Cases Noticed:

London (City) v. Ayerswood Development Corp. et al. (2002), 167 O.A.C. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 12].

Canadian Transit Co. v. Public Service Relations Board (Can.) et al. (1989), 99 N.R. 330 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Seafarers International Union of Canada v. Canadian National Railways Co., [1976] 2 F.C. 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

All Ontario Transport Ltd. v. Highway Transport Board (Ont.) (1979), 26 O.R.(2d) 202 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 27].

CIBA-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, [1994] 3 F.C. 425; 77 F.T.R. 197 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Marine Atlantic Inc. v. Canadian Merchant Service Guild et al. (2000), 258 N.R. 112 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

United States of America v. Kissel (2008), 234 O.A.C. 251; 89 O.R.(3d) 481; 2008 ONCA 208, refd to. [para. 42].

Maisonneuve v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2006 QCCA 977, refd to. [para. 42].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 43].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1739 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 341; 86 O.R.(3d) 508 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 173 F.T.R. 273 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

Vancouver International Airport Authority et al. v. Public Service Alliance of Canada (2010), 403 N.R. 363; 320 D.L.R.(4th) 733; 2010 FCA 158, refd to. [para. 48].

Statutes Noticed:

Taxicab Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. T-10; C.C.S.M., c. T-10, sect. 18(a), sect. 18.1 [para. 17]; sect. 19(1) [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blake, Sara, Administrative Law in Canada (5th Ed. 2011), pp. 37 [para. 19]; 39 [para. 24].

MacCauley, Robert W., and Sprague, James L.H., Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals (2004), vol. 3, p. 22-65 [para. 40].

Counsel:

S.G. Soronow and W.S. Gange, for the appellants;

M.S. Minuk, for the respondent, 2127423 Manitoba Ltd. o/a London Limos;

B.T. Jones, for the respondent, Taxicab Board.

This appeal was heard on February 6, 2012, before Monnin, Steel and Chartier, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

On August 7, 2012, Steel, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.