Uber

The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact, while the defendant claimed consensual interaction or an honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

The defendant's testimony was found to be inconsistent, illogical, and not credible.

The complainant's testimony was found to be clear, candid, and credible.

The court concluded that the complainant did not consent and that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent, thereby negating the defence of honest but mistaken belief.

The defendant was found guilty.

The plaintiffs, representing Ottawa taxi plate holders and brokers, brought a class action against the City of Ottawa for its response to Uber's entry into the local market in 2014.

The court found that the City owed a duty of care to the taxi industry based on a long-standing, collaborative relationship and was negligent in failing to enforce its 2012 taxi by-law against Uber.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that the City's actions violated section 15 of the Charter or the Human Rights Code, finding no disproportionate discriminatory impact based on race or immigrant status.

The court also dismissed the claim that the City's taxi licensing fees constituted an unlawful tax, finding a reasonable nexus between the fees and the cost of services provided.

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, supported by the co-defendants.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in the defendant's ride-share vehicle.

Relying on GPS data, engineering reports, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical history and statements, the court found the plaintiff's claim lacked credibility.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the alleged accident never occurred and dismissed the action.

The parties disputed the wording of a Certification Order in a class action regarding whether Uber drivers are employees.

The defendants requested the addition of the phrase 'to be calculated and assessed on an individual basis' to the paragraph describing the relief sought.

The court granted the request, finding that the phrase provided true and helpful information to the putative class members regarding the potential need for individual issues trials.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed disputes regarding the Notice of Certification and Notice Plan in a certified class proceeding against Uber.

The plaintiffs, representing drivers and delivery people seeking employee classification, proposed a notice plan.

Uber responded with alterations, including broader newspaper publication and inclusion of its defence commentary.

The court largely sided with Uber, approving a more robust, province-wide notice plan sensitive to language and diversity, and requiring the inclusion of Uber's legal position in the notices.

The court also apportioned the costs of newspaper notices 33% to the Plaintiffs and 67% to Uber.

The plaintiffs, taxicab plate owners, brought a proposed $1.7 billion class action against the City of Toronto, alleging negligence in the enforcement of its taxicab bylaws against Uber and in the enactment of a new bylaw permitting private transportation companies.

The plaintiffs moved for certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the City's enactment of the bylaw was a legislative function immune from private damage suits, and its enforcement of the bylaws was a public duty that did not create a private law duty of care to the taxicab plate owners for pure economic losses.

The appellant was charged with operating a taxicab without a valid licence contrary to the City of Oshawa Taxicab Licensing By-law.

The appellant was detected through an undercover operation where a municipal officer used the Uber app to request a ride.

The appellant accepted the ride request and arrived at the pickup location but was detained before any passenger entered the vehicle.

At trial, the appellant argued that no completed trip occurred and therefore no "operation" of an illegal taxicab had been proven.

The trial justice convicted based on findings that the appellant accepted the Uber ride request, arrived at the pickup location, and paid a cancellation fee, constituting evidence of hiring himself out for conveyance.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the interpretation of "conveyance" and "for hire" under the by-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant was found sitting in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle at 3:11 a.m.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption of care or control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant testified that he had driven to a bar with the plan to take an Uber home if he drank, that he had lost his car key while attempting to retrieve his personal belongings from the vehicle, and that he had no intention to drive.

The court found that the defendant had rebutted the presumption and that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a realistic risk of danger.

This case conference in a proposed class action by consumers against Uber for anti-competitive conduct established a timetable for a certification motion.

The court noted a parallel class action (Heller Action) by drivers against the same defendants, where drivers sought employee status, contrasting with the current action's pleading of drivers as self-employed.

The defendants are considering a motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the Heller Action regarding driver status.

Despite this, a timetable for the certification motion was set, with flexibility for future revisions.

The plaintiffs (taxicab drivers and their union) sought an interlocutory injunction against Uber drivers to enforce a City by-law, which was denied.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that unsuccessful injunction motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,000 plus HST and disbursements to the successful Uber drivers, payable forthwith, considering the complexity and importance of the matter, the intense work required to respond to an injunction, and the applicants' sophistication.

The applicant municipality sought an order to have provincial offences matters involving charges against a ride-sharing company and individual drivers tried by a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice rather than by a justice of the peace, as would ordinarily occur.

The applicant argued that the matters involved complex legal issues including Charter challenges, challenges to the validity of municipal by-laws, and issues of significant precedential value and broader public interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that justices of the peace possess sufficient education and training to handle Charter applications and by-law challenges, and that the matters did not meet the threshold for judicial assignment.

The court emphasized the importance of managing judicial resources and avoiding delays to serious criminal matters.

The municipality sought an injunction requiring the respondents to obtain a licence as either a taxicab broker or a limousine service company under Chapter 545 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The application alleged that the respondents, through their smartphone platform, accepted requests for transportation services and therefore carried on a regulated business.

The court interpreted the by‑law definitions of “taxicab”, “limousine service company”, and the requirement to “accept calls”, concluding that the automated software platform merely relayed digital requests between passengers and drivers.

Because acceptance occurred only when an individual driver chose to accept a trip request, the respondents themselves did not accept calls or requests within the meaning of the by‑law.

Accordingly, the respondents were not operating as a taxicab broker or limousine service company requiring a municipal licence.