Sunshine Transit Service v. Taxicab Board (Man.)

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Judge: Mainella, J.A.
• Citation: 2014 MBCA 33,(2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 266 (CA)
• Date: 13 March 2014

Sunshine Transit v. Taxicab Bd. (2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 266 (CA);

      600 W.A.C. 266

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.002

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

(AI 12-30-07852; 2014 MBCA 33)

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

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Mainella, J.A.

March 25, 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 basis 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 applied for leave to appeal on, inter alia, the Board's application of s. 8. The respondent 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., 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.

Administrative Law - Topic 8921

Boards and tribunals - Powers - General - The applicant applied for a licence to operate a wheelchair accessible limousine service in Winnipeg - The Manitoba Taxicab Board denied the application - The applicant applied for leave to appeal on the basis that the Board erred 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 - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., denied leave to appeal - The argument should have been raised before the Board - The assertion that the Board lacked the necessary expertise to consider a statutory interpretation was not persuasive - It was well accepted that administrative tribunals, not the courts, had the primary role in interpreting their home statute - There was a presumption that review of such decisions would be on the reasonableness standard - The court disagreed with an assertion that an administrative tribunal, such as the Board, necessarily lacked the expertise to entertain a bilingual interpretation submission of its own statute - The law presumed regularity of the administrative process until demonstrated otherwise - The law obligated administrative tribunals to consider bilingual interpretation submissions and decide them in accordance with the rules of statutory interpretation - It would be inappropriate to assume that the Board could not fulfill that task before it was given an opportunity to consider the issue - See paragraphs 31 to 34.

Administrative Law - Topic 9067

Boards and tribunals - Jurisdiction of particular boards and tribunals - Provincial or municipal taxicab boards - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8921 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9133

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Leave to appeal - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8921 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9133

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Leave to appeal - The applicant applied for a licence to operate a wheelchair accessible limousine service in Winnipeg - The Manitoba Taxicab Board denied the application - The applicant applied for leave to appeal on the basis that the Board erred 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 - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., denied leave to appeal - The argument should have been raised before the Board - That the applicant did not have counsel was not persuasive - The applicant's strategy in not hiring a lawyer might not have been wise, but it was not an exceptional circumstance - If a party could raise a new argument in the court simply because of a conscious decision to not invest resources in a lawyer for the hearing before the Board, the efficiencies and finality of the administrative process would be jeopardized - See paragraphs 29 and 30.

Carriers - Topic 1705

Licensing - Statutory appeals - Leave to appeal - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8921 and second Administrative Law - Topic 9133 ].

Trade Regulation - Topic 6607

Services - Licensing and regulation - Particular services - Taxi service - [See Administrative Law - Topic 8921 and second Administrative Law - Topic 9133 ].

Cases Noticed:

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 19].

Manitoba Housing Authority v. Young (2011), 268 Man.R.(2d) 294; 520 W.A.C. 294; 2011 MBCA 68, refd to. [para. 22].

Manitoba v. Russell Inns Ltd. et al. (2013), 291 Man.R.(2d) 244; 570 W.A.C. 244; 2013 MBCA 46, refd to. [para. 23].

Sandhu et al. v. Taxicab Board (Man.), [2013] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 47; 2013 MBCA 82, refd to. [para. 25].

Harder v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. et al. (2012), 284 Man.R.(2d) 254; 555 W.A.C. 254; 2012 MBCA 101, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Brown (A.R.R.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 918; 155 N.R. 225; 141 A.R. 163; 46 W.A.C. 163, refd to. [para. 27].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 31].

Friesen (Brian Neil) Dental Corp. et al. v. Director of Companies Office (Man.) et al. (2011), 262 Man.R.(2d) 197; 507 W.A.C. 197; 2011 MBCA 20, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Dickson (W.A.) (2013), 294 Man.R.(2d) 103; 581 W.A.C. 103; 2013 MBCA 58, refd to. [para. 32].

Thunderbird Holdings Ltd. v. Manitoba et al. (2013), 299 Man.R.(2d) 60; 590 W.A.C. 60; 2013 MBCA 78, refd to. [para. 32].

J & R Property Management et al. v. Kenwell (2011), 262 Man.R.(2d) 164; 507 W.A.C. 164; 2011 MBCA 5, refd to. [para. 32].

Restrictive Trade Practices Commission et al. v. Irvine et al., [1987] 1 S.C.R. 181; 74 N.R. 33, refd to. [para. 34].

Ellis-Don Ltd. v. Labour Relations Board (Ont.) et al., [2001] 1 S.C.R. 221; 265 N.R. 2; 140 O.A.C. 201; 2001 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 34].

Memorial Gardens Association (Canada) Ltd. v. Colwood Cemetery Co., [1958] S.C.R. 353, refd to. [para. 40].

Sincennes et al. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.) et al. (2009), 454 A.R. 121; 455 W.A.C. 121; 2009 ABCA 167, refd to. [para. 41].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 41].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 43].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Bastarache, Michel, The Law of Bilingual Interpretation (2008), p. 50 [para. 42].

Macaulay, Robert W., Sprague, James L.H., Practice and Procedure Before Administrative Tribunals (2004), vol. 4, p. 8-7 [para. 39].

Counsel:

A.E. Craft and M.E. Bowman, for the applicant;

B.T. Jones, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Chambers on March 13, 2014, by Mainella, J.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who pronounced the following decision on March 25, 2014.