Sunshine Transit Services v. Taxicab Board (Man.)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Judge: Hamilton, MacInnes and Mainella, JJ.A.
• Citation: 2014 MBCA 47,(2014), 306 Man.R.(2d) 27 (CA)
• Date: 07 May 2014

Sunshine Transit v. Taxicab Bd. (2014), 306 Man.R.(2d) 27 (CA);

      604 W.A.C. 27

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MY.027

Sunshine Transit Services, o/a Sunshine Limousine Service (appellant/appellant) v. The Taxicab Board (respondent/respondent)

(AI 12-30-07852; 2014 MBCA 47)

Indexed As: Sunshine Transit Services v. Taxicab Board (Man.)

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Hamilton, MacInnes and Mainella, JJ.A.

May 7, 2014.

Summary:

The applicant applied for a licence to operate a wheelchair accessible limousine service in Winnipeg. At the time, there were no such limousines operating in Winnipeg. The Manitoba Taxicab Board issued a written decision on September 5, 2012, the operative part of which stated "Unanimous decision of the Board that the application for one (1) Specialty Vehicle Limousine Business Licence be denied". The applicant applied for leave to appeal on the grounds that the Board erred (1) in its application of s. 8 of the Taxicab Act, in particular in its consideration of the public convenience and necessity respecting the number of taxicabs required in Winnipeg; and (2) by failing to provide proper, or any, reasons for its decision.

On January 31, 2013, the Manitoba Court of Appeal, per MacInnes, J.A., in a decision reported at [2013] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 4, granted leave to appeal on the second proposed ground and deferred consideration of the first proposed ground. On December 19, 2013, the Board provided written reasons for its decision. The applicant again applied for leave to appeal, inter alia, the Board's application of s. 8. The Board conceded that it was appropriate for the court to consider the application for leave on the s. 8 issue as that proposed ground formed part of the first leave application filed within 30 days of the Board's dismissal of the licence application and there was delay in the Board providing its reasons.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., in a decision reported at (2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 266; 600 W.A.C. 266; granted the applicant an extension of time to file its application to seek leave with respect to the s. 8 argument, but denied leave to appeal. The initial appeal respecting s. 8 proceeded.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be dismissed as moot. The court expressed its disapproval of the Board's failure to give reasons for 15 months and stated that it would have ordered costs against the Board but for the fact that such was prohibited by s. 19.3(2) of the Act.

Administrative Law - Topic 550

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - Effect of lack of - The applicant applied for leave to appeal a decision of the Manitoba Taxicab Board denying it a specialty vehicle business licence on the grounds that the Board erred (1) in its application of s. 8 of the Taxicab Act, in particular in its consideration of the public convenience and necessity respecting the number of taxicabs required in Winnipeg; and (2) by failing to provide proper, or any, reasons for its decision - MacInnes, J.A., granted leave to appeal on the second proposed ground and deferred consideration of the first proposed ground - Some 15 months after the Board's decision, the Board issued reasons - The applicant again applied for leave to appeal respecting the Board's application of s. 8 - The Board conceded that it was appropriate for the court to consider the application as the proposed ground formed part of the first leave application filed within the prescribed time and there had been delay in the Board providing reasons - Mainella, J.A., granted the applicant an extension of time to file its application to seek leave respecting the s. 8 argument, but denied leave to appeal - The initial appeal respecting s. 8 proceeded - The Manitoba Court of Appeal granted the leave but dismissed the appeal as moot - The court noted a number of appeals that demonstrated the Board's disregard of its duty to give reasons - The parties and the public were entitled know why the Board reached a decision - A decision or order, without reasons, usually could not be the subject of effective judicial review - Rather than seeking leave to appeal on a substantive question of law or jurisdiction, the applicant was required to seek leave to appeal for breach of procedural fairness - As a result, the applicant incurred unnecessary expense and the motion took up valuable court time and judicial resources - Similarly, a party could not make an effective re-application before the Board without reasons - The delay in giving reasons was unacceptable and reflected a pattern of conduct that could not be condoned - The court would have ordered costs against the Board but for the fact that such was prohibited by s. 19.3(2) of the Act.

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) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 550 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2158

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Delay - [See Administrative Law - Topic 550 ].

Carriers - Topic 1524

Licensing - Procedure - Duty of fairness - [See Administrative Law - Topic 550 ].

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See Administrative Law - Topic 550 ].

Cases Noticed:

Abetew v. Taxicab Board (Man.) (2013), 288 Man.R.(2d) 288; 564 W.A.C. 288; 2013 MBCA 19, refd to. [para. 5].

Brar v. Taxicab Board (Man.) (2013), 299 Man.R.(2d) 231; 590 W.A.C. 231; 2013 MBCA 103, refd to. [para. 5].

Gidda v. Taxicab Board (Man.), [2011] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 56; 2011 MBCA 64, refd to. [para. 5].

Counsel:

K.R. Wittman and A.E. Craft, for the appellant;

B.T. Jones, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 7, 2014, by Hamilton, MacInnes and Mainella, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Hamilton, J.A., pronounced the following judgment for the court on the same date.