Uber Lyft Case Answer
Uber Lyft Case Answer
Issue: The board is an administrative body established under the Passenger Transportation
Act and hence the decision of the body can be labeled as an administrative decision. The
question here is what standard of review will apply to the decision of an administrative
body?
Legal Rule: The Vavilov judgement clearly states, while determining the standard of review
which a court should apply where the merits of an administrative decision are challenged is
situations:
shall not apply or where the statue itself provides for appeal to a court and there,
ii. Where the rule of law requires that standard of correctness should apply, that is, in
legal importance.
Application:
In the given case, the empowering statue that is, Passenger Transportation Act provides,
under S.62(1), provides for an application to the Supreme Court for setting aside of the
decision of the board, but what is important to note here that it is not in the form of an
appeal but a review because the statute empowers the Supreme Court not to make
modifications to the order but to directly set it aside. Hence, the case does not fall under the
first situation.
Further, as the question clearly involves the consideration of the decision of the board on
merits of the case and does not involve any questions related to the constitutional or
general legal importance, it is safe to say that in this case the rule of law does not demand
the
standard of review which will be most suitable in the given circumstance is ‘reasonableness’.
Issue: Applying the standard of review to the board’s decision, is the decision reasonable or
not?
Legal Rule:The Supreme Court in the Vavilov judgement provides, the focus of
reasonableness review must take into account both decision maker’s reasoning process for
a decision as well as the outcome that was reached. To determine whether a decision is
reasonable, a reviewing court must ask whether the decision bears the hallmark of
relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision.
The court further laid down two ways in which an administrative decision can be
unreasonable:
bear on the decision. For instance, governing statutory scheme, submissions of the
Application: The Board undertook its proceedings by mainly focusing on three conditions as
- Firstly, Uber and Lyft were successfully able to establish the absence of ‘ride-sharing’
in the passenger transportation market and also established the demand for the
same.
- Secondly, the fitness and capacity of the companies were not an issue of the
- Thirdly, the submitters fiercely opposed these companies as they speculated that
accidents among others. But the board dismissed these submissions as being based
upon the experiences of other jurisdictions which the board stated, cannot be
those jurisdictions.
- Lastly, the board authorized its discretion by not fixing up the fleet size for these
companies. But, such discretion is within the legal constraints imposed by the
Section 26(1)(3),which deals with fleet sizes under Section 26(1)(3)(c)(iii) which starts
with “The Board may establish …..” as opposed to the other provisions which starts
with “The Board must establish …..”, hence giving the board discretion. Further, the
board stated its reason for such discretion which is meeting the goal of public need.
Conclusion: Considering the abovementioned reasoning provided by the board and decision
reached by it on that reasoning, it can be safely assumed that the decision of the Board
Q. Assuming the common law duty of procedural fairness applies, what is the strength of
Issue: What is the strength of the procedural fairness owed to the petitioners?
Legal Rule: To ascertain the degree of fairness obligation owed the petitioners the 5 Baker
principles will have to be applied to the facts of the case. They are as follows:
i. Nature of the decision made and the process. Here it has to ascertained whether
ii. Nature of the Statutory Scheme. Here, it has to be seen whether the statue
because in such a case procedural fairness degree will be high. Also, if the
empowering statue provides for an appeal or review, because if it does not the
decision is final in nature which makes the degree of procedural fairness very
high.
iii. Importance of the decision to the individual. Here, if the decision is one which
affects the rights and interests of the parties then the procedural fairness is high
and if the decision is of not much significance to the parties then degree of
iv. Legitimate Expectation. Here is the authority makes a representation to the party
with respect to any procedural process which is within her legal power to
conduct then it gives rise to the legitimate expectation and it may become
provides that the decision maker is free to decide its own procedure then it
represents discretion and deference must be practiced by the court and the
Application:
Firstly, nature of the decision is closer to the judicial spectrum then that of the
administrative spectrum. Although, the operational policy provides for the proceedings to
be quick and informal but it actual functioning the adjudicating body, that is the board
follows formal procedure, that is publication of notice for received application, written
hearings and majority rule by voting among 9-member body, which are all professionals and
are appointed by Attorney General. Hence, such judicial and formal nature of the Board
Secondly, the statutory scheme provides for review to the Supreme Court under Section
62(1). Hence supporting claim for a lower degree of procedural fairness. However, the
statue provides for giving of notices, informing parties about official dates and written
hearings, this implies that there is some kind of procedural obligation upon the board.
Thirdly, the submitters are all people working in the transportation business. The entry of
companies like Uber and Lyft are going to directly impact their livelihood as there will be
immense competition. It might also lead to some businesses in this field to go out of
business. On the other hand, for companies like Uber and Lyft entering new market is crucial
for growth, furthermore, entry of such private giants is good for economy of the province.
Because of such significant factors at stake it can be safely said that decision is one which
Fourthly, the facts of the case clearly imply that there has been no promise by any of the
board members with respect to anything to any of the parties. Hence, doctrine of
Lastly, the Board is granted full discretion with respect to the procedure of to be undertaken
by the Board and hence this implies that court should practice deference and hence, the
Conclusion: Taking in consideration all of the above matters it can easily concluded that
Q. How strong are the petitioner’s arguments that they were denied procedural fairness on
Issue: Whether the contention of the petitioners that they procedural fairness was denied
Legal Rule: It has been established by applying the Baker synthesis on the facts of the
present case that an intermediate degree of procedural fairness was owed to the
petitioners.
Further applying the common law doctrine of audi alteram states that the party affected by
the decision has the right to know the case against it and be provided with meaningful
opportunity to address it. This doctrine is also known as the content of duty of procedural
Lastly, it was held in the case of Young v Central Health that in a case where a mid-point
duty of procedural fairness applies the decision maker is obliged to share any prejudicial
evidence with the petitioner and afford him the opportunity to respond before making a
final decision.
Application:
The Board held a closed hearing with Uber and Lyft which was on a phone call and which
lasted 35 minutes and further, a study was submitted to the court during that closed hearing
which provided impact of TNS in other Canadian cities as well as in Taxi industry.
Considering the facts of the case this piece of information targeted a very crucial point of
the proceedings. However, the submitters were not even informed of neither the phone call
or the submitted study. Applying the audi alteram partem doctrine here, it can be easily said
that participatory rights of the petitioners have been infringed because the lack of
disclosure has kept the petitioners to know the full case against them which is highly
Conclusion: The case being one of intermediate procedural fairness, it can be safely stated
that the Board owed a duty to disclose prejudicial evidence against the petitioners and its
failure to do so have resulted in denial of participatory rights to the petitioners. Hence, the
contention of the petitioners that the participatory rights were denied to them holds
strength.
Legal Rule: