City Cash Liability Undecided In Taxi Case
Subject / Objet Metro Taxi – Legal Update Date: June 6, 2025
In consultation with the Chair of Emergency Preparedness and Protective Services Committee, the purpose of this memo is to provide Members with an update on the ongoing Metro Taxi class action case that is currently before the Superior Court of Justice.
—
This is a release from the City of Ottawa:
—
The Court has recently scheduled further trial dates to address the final liability question to be addressed during the month of March 2026. This remaining liability question is whether damages in the aggregate are appropriate.
The Court recently addressed the structure and scheduling of the trial during a Case Management Conference held during May 2025 and attended by the parties’ lawyers.
With respect scheduling, the Court determined that, as this is a complex class action proceeding, it must proceed in a structured manner. Moreover, the Court determined that since the commencement of the trial, there has not been any inordinate delay. As such, the trial structure will remain in place and will continue as scheduled.
Members will recall that last year, the Court issued a decision on May 13, 2024, with findings on three of four questions relating to liability. Those questions were as follows:
1. Was the City negligent in enforcing the 2012 Taxi By-law [against Uber] from September 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016? Finding: Yes.
2. Did the City’s conduct in allegedly negligently enforcing the 2012 Taxi By-law or in amending the Taxi By-law in 2016 infringe upon the right of Taxi Plate Holders under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or under Section 3 of the Human Rights Code? Finding: No.
3. Did the fees collected by the City under its Taxi By-law constitute an unlawful tax? Finding: No.
Once the final question relating to liability is determined following the trial continuation, the parties’ appeal rights (to the Court of Appeal for Ontario) would be triggered on any or all four liability questions. I will advise Members of Council of the outcome of the remaining liability issue and at that time, the City, in coordination with its insurer, will consider its available legal options.
I trust that the above is helpful. I would remind Members of Council that as this matter remains before the Courts, it would be consistent with the City’s standard practice not to make public comments on the case. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Stuart Huxley
Interim City Solicitor
For You:
City Probes Sprung Structure Site: LO
Ottawa’s Puzzling Infrastructure Gap: Prof
City Hall: Security Gates Aren’t Secure
City Security … First Person: BENN
Security Blocks City Hall Services: BENN
Bookmark The Bulldog, click here
” . . . . . it would be consistent with the City’s standard practice not to make public comments on the case. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.” Is responding to a question not considered a comment concerning the case?
Sisco:
I was going to comment on this but I’ve said it before. Nevertheless …
You can comment on items before the court as long as you do not create contempt of court or butcher the judicial proceedings. Also if the case is before a judge, it is difficult to ruin the proceedings because the judge is supposed to be above all that. He or she can’t be compromised.
In front of a jury, that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
The reason the city doesn’t want councillors to comment is because they might not know the rules and it creates an issue or controversy which the legal and mayoral types don’t want. Out of sight, out of mind.
I wonder if there are any confidentially agreements around this issue and who asked for them?
Thank you for bringing this up.
cheers
kgray
Thanks for the clarification, Ken. Since Mr Huxley is in fact putting forth a feel-good but relatively useless response, allow me to paraphrase his quote, one we’ve all heard upon calling various help desks – “We’re here ’til you need us”.