United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City), (2004) 346 A.R. 4 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 08, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 346 A.R. 4 (SCC);2004 SCC 19;18 RPR (4th) 1;JE 2004-733;318 NR 170;26 Alta LR (4th) 1;[2004] CarswellAlta 355;320 WAC 4;12 Admin LR (4th) 1;[2004] 7 WWR 603;236 DLR (4th) 385;[2004] SCJ No 19 (QL);346 AR 4;AZ-5022718;46 MPLR (3d) 1;[2004] 1 SCR 485;EYB 2004-55539;50 MVR (4th) 1

United Taxi Drivers v. Calgary (2004), 346 A.R. 4 (SCC);

    320 W.A.C. 4

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MR.187

City of Calgary (appellant) v. United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta, Rashpal Singh Gosal, Haringer Singh Dhesi, Aero Cab Ltd. and Air Linker Cab Ltd. (respondents) and Attorney General of Alberta (intervener)

(29321; 2004 SCC 19; 2004 CSC 19)

Indexed As: United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. v. Calgary (City)

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

March 25, 2004.

Summary:

The Calgary Taxi Business Bylaw No 91/77 contained a number of licensing re­quire­ments, including a requirement that all taxi vehicles have a licence plate. The City's Taxi Commission adopted a restricted entry system for the taxi business and accordingly froze the number of taxi licences. Thereafter the provincial government enacted a new Mu­­nicipal Government Act which deemed the existing bylaw to have the same effect as if it had been passed under the new Act. The United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. (the taxi drivers) claimed that the freeze on the issuance of taxi plate li­cences was ultra vires the city under the Mu­nicipal Government Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 217 A.R. 1, held that the city had the power to limit the number of taxi plate licenses. The taxi drivers appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, O'Leary, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported 303 A.R. 249; 273 W.A.C. 249, allowed the ap­peal. The court held that while the old Mu­nicipal Government Act expressly granted the city the power to limit the number of taxi plate licences, the new Act did not. The city appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal.

Municipal Law - Topic 1497

Powers of municipalities - Licensing and regulating taxis - The Calgary Taxi Busi­ness Bylaw No 91/77 contained a number of licensing requirements, including a re­quirement that all taxi vehicles have a licence plate - The City's Taxi Commis­sion adopted a restricted entry system for the taxi business and accordingly froze the number of taxi licences - Thereafter the provincial government enacted a new Mu­nici­pal Government Act which deemed the existing bylaw to have the same effect as if it had been passed under the new Act - The United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta et al. (the taxi drivers) claimed that the freeze on the issuance of taxi plate licences was ultra vires the city under the Municipal Government Act - The Supreme Court of Canada interpreted the Municipal Government Act using a broad and purposive approach and con­cluded that the city was authorized under the Act to enact Bylaw 91/77 and to im­pose the freeze on the issuance of taxi plate licences.

Municipal Law - Topic 1682

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of powers - Scope of powers of judicial review - The Supreme Court of Can­ada stated that "the only question in this case is whether the freeze on the is­suance of taxi plate licences was ultra vires the city under the Municipal Govern­ment Act. Municipalities do not possess any greater institutional competence or exper­tise than the courts in delineating their jurisdiction. Such a question will always be reviewed on a standard of cor­rectness ... There is no need to engage in the prag­matic and functional approach in a review for vires; such an inquiry is only required where a municipality's adjudicative or policy-making function is being exercised" - See paragraph 5.

Municipal Law - Topic 1684

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of power - Scope of power of municipality - The Supreme Court of Can­ada discussed the proper approach to the interpretation of municipal powers - The court stated that "the evolution of the modern municipality has produced a shift in the proper approach to the interpretation of statutes empowering municipalities. ... The 'benevolent' and 'strict' construction dichotomy has been set aside, and a broad and purposive approach to the interpreta­tion of municipal powers has been em­braced ... This interpretive approach has evolved concomitantly with the modern method of drafting municipal legislation. Several provinces have moved away from the practice of granting municipalities specific powers in particular subject areas, choosing instead to confer them broad au­thority over generally defined matters ... This shift in legislative drafting reflects the true nature of modern municipalities which require greater flexibility in fulfilling their statutory purposes ..." - See paragraph 6.

Municipal Law - Topic 1684

Powers of municipalities - Judicial review of exercise of power - Scope of power of mu­nicipality - The Supreme Court of Can­ada stated that "Alberta's Municipal Gov­ernment Act follows the modern method of drafting municipal legislation. The legis­lature's intention to enhance the powers of its municipalities by drafting the bylaw passing provisions of the Act in broad and general terms is expressly stated in s. 9. Accordingly, to determine whether a mu­nicipality is authorized to exercise a certain power, such as limiting the issuance of taxi plate licences, the provisions of the Act must be construed in a broad and pur­po­sive manner" - See paragraph 7.

Municipal Law - Topic 3884

Bylaws - Quashing bylaws - Judicial re­view - Practice - Standard of review - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1682 ].

Cases Noticed:

Nanaimo (City) v. Rascal Trucking Ltd. et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 342; 251 N.R. 42; 132 B.C.A.C. 298; 215 W.A.C. 298; 2000 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 5].

Shell Canada Products Ltd. v. Vancouver (City), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 231; 163 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 81; 66 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 8].

Merritt v. Toronto (City) (1895), 22 O.A.R. 205, refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Calgary (City) Bylaws, Taxi Business Bylaw 91/77, sect. 7(1), sect. 9.1, sect. 9.2, sect. 9.3 [para. 4].

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-26, sect. 234(1), sect. 234(2), sect. 234(8) [para. 4].

Municipal Government Act, S.A. 1994, c. M-26.1, sect. 3, sect. 7, sect. 8, sect. 9, sect. 715 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, E.A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 8].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 395 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Leila J. Gosselin, Brand R. Inlow, Q.C., and R. Shawn Swinn, for the appellant;

Dale Gibson and Sandra Anderson, for the respondents, United Taxi Drivers' Fel­low­ship of Southern Alberta, Rashpal Singh Gosal and Haringer Singh Dhesi;

No one appeared for the respondent, Aero Cab Ltd.;

Gabor I. Zinner, for the respondent Air Linker Cab Ltd.;

Lorne Merryweather, for the intervener.

Solicitors of Record:

City of Calgary Law Department, Calgary, Alberta, for the appellant;

Dale Gibson & Associates, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondents, United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta, Rashpal Singh Gosal and Haringer Singh Dhesi;

Zinner & Sara, Calgary, Alberta, for the respondent, Air Linker Cab Ltd.;

Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervener.

This appeal was heard on December 8, 2003, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel, Deschamps, and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. Bastarache, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages on March 25, 2004.