Sadiq v. The Taxicab Board, 2014 MBCA 64

Citation: Sadiq v. The Taxicab Board, 2014 MBCA 64 Date: 20140616 Docket: AI 14-30-08175 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN : REHMAN SADIQ ) R. Sadiq ) on his own behalf Applicant ) ) B. T. Jones - and - ) for the Respondent ) THE TAXICAB BOARD ) Chambers motion heard: ) May 29, 2014 ) Respondent ) Decision pronounced: ) June 16, 2014 MICHEL A.

MONNIN J.A. [ 1 ] The applicant seeks leave to appeal from an order of the respondent, the Taxicab Board, wherein he was reprimanded, fined $250 and ordered to return a $50 fare to a customer. [ 2 ] Leave can only be obtained on a question of jurisdiction or law. [ 3 ] The Taxicab Board’s order was made following a hearing into a complaint made by a customer alleging that the applicant had charged $50 to return a cell phone that the customer had left behind in a taxi operated by the applicant, contrary to sections of the Taxicab Regulation , Man.

Reg. 209/91. [ 4 ] In its reasons for decision, the respondent stated: The Board considered the evidence presented at the Show Cause Hearing and the documentary evidence provided to the panel. Following the Show Cause Hearing, the Board deliberated and found that [the applicant] had contravened sections 30(1), 30(2)(

c) and (f), 34(2)(

a) and (c) & 43(1)(

a) of The Taxicab Regulation 209/91. The Board based their ruling on the evidence that was before them. [The applicant] concedes that he took money from the complainant when he returned her cellphone. There is disagreement over the amount paid and whether the complainants were given a choice. In considering the evidence of [the complainant] and [the applicant], the Board found that [the complainant’s] evidence was credible and preferred her evidence to that of [the applicant], where their evidence differed.

The Board has a mandate to ensure the safe and proper operation of taxicabs in the City of Winnipeg and as such the Board must ensure the integrity of the taxicab driver. The Board considers the incident described in the case to be a serious departure from the conduct expected of a taxicab driver. A taxicab driver may not charge any amount of compensation for returning items that do not belong to them. The Taxicab Board has not authorized any charge for the return of property.

In these circumstances, the Board finds that the appropriate remedy is a letter of reprimand, a $250.00 fine and that the $50.00 that the complainant paid to the driver for the return of the cell phone be reimbursed.

The Board’s specific orders are set out in Board Order No. 6/2014. [ 5 ] The applicant takes issue with the respondent’s findings. [ 6 ] In order for leave to be granted, an applicant must satisfy this court: 1) that the issue he or she wishes to raise is truly one of jurisdiction or law and not one which involves an assessment or analysis of conflicting factual issues; 2) that the issue to be raised is one of importance, not just for the instant case, but in determining other similar disputes in the future; and 3) that there is an arguable case of substance. See Pelchat v.

Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. , 2006 MBCA 90 , 40 C.C.L.I. (4th) 46.

[ 7 ] The applicant has failed to persuade me that his application meets any of the three criteria. Accordingly, the application is denied. J.A.