2011 MBCA 45, 2011 MBCA 45

Citation: 2127423 Manitoba Ltd. o/a London Limos Date: 20110531 v. Unicity Taxi Ltd. et al., 2011 MBCA 45 Docket: AI 11-30-07556 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN : 2127423 MANITOBA LTD. ) S. G. Soronow and o/a LONDON LIMOS ) W. S. Gange ) for the Applicants (Applicant) Respondent ) ) J. S. Petryshyn - and - ) for the Respondent ) 2127423 Manitoba Ltd. UNICITY TAXI LTD. and DUFFY’

S) o/a London Limos TAXI

(1996) LTD. ) ) B. T. Jones (Objectors) Applicants ) for the Respondent ) The Taxicab Board - and - ) ) Chambers motion heard: ) May 19, 2011 THE TAXICAB BOARD ) ) Decision pronounced: Respondent ) May 31, 2011 CHARTIER J.A. 1 Unicity Taxi Ltd. and Duffy’s Taxi

(1996) Ltd. (the objectors) move for leave to appeal a decision of the Taxicab Board (the Board), which approved, in part, several taxi licences for 2127423 Manitoba Ltd., o/a London Limos (London Limos). The objectors also asked for a stay of the Board’s order pending appeal. That request has since been withdrawn. 2 London Limos had applied to the Board for additional taxicab business licences. The objectors opposed the application. While London Limos filed binders of documents in support of its application, the only information provided to the objectors was a one-page

summary. After a hearing, in which the objectors participated, the Board granted the application in part. It provided no reasons. 3 The objectors have now requested leave to appeal from that decision on the following two questions: 1) Did the failure of the Board to provide any information to the objectors, other than a one-page

summary, amount to a breach of the duty of fairness and the rules of natural justice? 2) Does the failure of the Board to provide reasons amount to a breach of the duty of fairness and the rules of natural justice? 4 Usually, only a party to the proceedings in first instance can appeal. In this case, the objectors were not directly parties to the application. While neither the Board nor London Limos raised a concern with respect to the objectors’ standing to ask for leave to appeal, I must be satisfied that this court has jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Leave to appeal from an order of the Board may be granted to a “person” on a question of law or jurisdiction (see s. 19.2(1) of The Taxicab Act , C.C.S.M., c. T10 (the Act )). Although the word “person” is not defined under the Act , I am satisfied that it includes a “participant” in a hearing (see ss. 18 and 18.1 of the Act ).

As the objectors filed an objection to the application and participated in the hearing, their leave motion is properly before me. 5 In addition to raising a question of law or jurisdiction, the objectors must show, with respect to each question raised, that there is an arguable case of substance which raises an issue of importance that ought to engage this court (see Plaha v.

The Taxicab Board , 2010 MBCA 99 at para. 14 ). 6 The objectors argue that the Board’s failure to provide them with the documents filed in support of London Limos’s application prevented them from being able to object in full to the application. They also point out that there exists, by virtue of s. 19.2(1) , a statutory right to apply to this court for leave to appeal on a question of jurisdiction or law. They submit that it is nearly

impossible to assess whether there may be an error of law or jurisdiction without reasons that explain the “why” of the decision. 7 T he Board puts emphasis on the fact that the role of the objectors at the hearing was that of objector and that neither was directly a party to the application. It takes the position that it acted within its jurisdiction when it decided not to disclose all of the information to the objectors. It asserts there was not a breach of the duty of fairness. On the second issue, the Board points out that the objectors never specifically asked it for reasons.

It argues that because this was not done, they cannot now claim that the Board failed to provide reasons. The Board submits that, as there is no reasonable prospect of success on these proposed appeal questions, leave should be denied. 8 For its part, London Limos asserts that the documents it provided contain confidential information. With respect to the failure to disclose issue, it argues that the sharing of confidential operational information with third parties runs contrary to the doctrine of qualified privilege.

On the issue of failure to give reasons, it submits that, because there is no requirement under the Act to do so, the Board did not fail to meet an obligation. 9 In essence, the objectors are claiming the Board erred in its adjudication by committing due process errors. Such errors are typically considered to be questions of law (see Donald J.M. Brown, Q.C., Civil Appeals , looseleaf (Toronto: Canvasback Publishing Inc., 2009) vol. 2, ch. 3 at para. 3:2221). I have been persuaded that the issues raised by the objectors are questions of law that meet the criteria for leave to be granted.

As the questions raised will now be considered by a panel of this court, I will not expand further. 10 Leave is granted on the two questions mentioned above. J.A.