White Hatter Limousine Service Ltd. v. Calgary (City), (1993) 144 A.R. 379 (QB)

• Judge: Medhurst, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 13, 1993
• Citations: (1993), 144 A.R. 379 (QB)

White Hatter Limousine v. Calgary (1993), 144 A.R. 379 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

White Hatter Limousine Service Ltd. (plaintiff) v. The City of Calgary (defendant)

(Action No. 8801-09338)

Indexed As: White Hatter Limousine Service Ltd. v. Calgary (City)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Medhurst, J.

October 13, 1993.

Summary:

Haaster purchased a stretch limousine after the Chief Taxi Inspector advised he would have no trouble obtaining a limousine licence. However, a freeze on licences put his application on hold. Haaster's company operated a limousine service without a licence. Inspectors enforcing the city's taxi bylaw took steps to interfere with the oper­ation of his business. Court action subsequently determined that the taxi bylaw did not apply to limousines, therefore, the company was entitled to operate its limou­sine service without a licence. The company sued the city for damages for harassment and interference with the lawful operation of its business.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the action and awarded $10,000 general and punitive damages. The inspec­tors acted arrogantly and in abuse of their authority in going beyond that required to enforce the taxi bylaw. They sought to stop the company's business from operating before the application of the bylaw to the company had been determined.

Crown - Topic 2448

Liability of Crown - Enforcement of statutes - When liable - Unconstitutional or invalid legislation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "public offi­cials charged with enforcing legislation cannot be held liable in damages for pur­porting to lawfully enforce legislation which is later determined to be invalid. It is not intimidation to make threats of certain acts if the intent is not to injure but merely to ensure compliance of legisla­tion." - See paragraph 16.

Damages - Topic 1301.3

Exemplary or punitive damages - Interfer­ence with business - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1767 ].

Damages - Topic 4044

Interference with economic relations - Business relations - Measure of damages - [See Municipal Law - Topic 1767 ].

Municipal Law - Topic 1767

Liability of municipalities - Torts - Inter­ference with economic relations - A com­pany operated a limousine service without obtaining a licence under the city's taxi bylaw - City inspectors interfered with the operation of the business, including con­tacting prospective customers - Court proceedings subsequently determined that the bylaw did not apply to limousines, therefore, the limousine service could lawfully operate without a licence - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found the city liable in damages for interfering with the company's operation of its business - The overly zealous inspectors sought to stop the company from operating before the application of the bylaw was deter­mined - The inspectors acted arrogantly and in abuse of their authority in going beyond what was required to enforce the bylaw - The court awarded $10,000 gen­eral and punitive damages.

Torts - Topic 5241

Interference with economic relations - Business relations - General - [See Mun­icipal Law - Topic 1767 ].

Cases Noticed:

Central Canada Potash Co. and Canada (Attorney General) v. Saskatchewan, [1978] 6 W.W.R. 400; 23 N.R. 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Gershman v. Manitoba (Vegetable Pro­ducers Marketing Board), [1976] 4 W.W.R. 406 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Barthropp v. West Vancouver (District) (1979), 17 B.C.L.R. 202 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] 1 All E.R. 367; [1964] A.C. 1129 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 24].

Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Calgary (City) Bylaws, Taxi Business Bylaw No. 91/77, generally [para. 12].

Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-26, sect. 234, sect. 234(8) [para. 11].

Counsel:

Larry S. Heald, for the plaintiff;

John C. Anderson and Monette N. Maillet, for the defendant.

This action was heard before Medhurst, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following judgment on October 13, 1993.