CITATION: Abdy v. City of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 5069

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 102/20

DATE: 2020/08/26

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

Sachs, Favreau and Backhouse JJ.

BETWEEN:

Mr. Mohammad Naby Abdy, Gurmeet Singh Marwah and Hilas Mohamed Suleiman

Applicants

– and –

City of Toronto

Respondent

Alan S. Cofman and Janice Pereira, for the Applicants

Matthew Cornett, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto by videoconference: July 27, 2020

H. Sachs J.

Overview

[1] This application arises out of the City of Toronto’s decision in 2014 to convert all of Toronto’s taxicabs to fully accessible vehicles. One of the ways this conversion was to be achieved was a provision that any Standard Taxicab License (“STL”) that was sold after January of 2014 had to be converted into a Toronto Taxicab Licence (“TTL”), which required owners to ensure that their vehicles were wheelchair accessible. In February of 2014, Toronto City Council passed a by-law incorporating this provision (the “2014 By-Law”). The by-law also required that all STL owners convert their vehicles to wheelchair accessible vehicles (and become TTL holders) by 2024.

[2] The 2014 By-Law became the subject of a court challenge. The Applicants in this proceeding were not parties to that court challenge. On June 25, 2014, the Superior Court of Justice issued an interim order that suspended the City’s implementation of the conversion provisions of the by-law until the by-law challenge could be decided (the “Interim Order”). This meant that pending the hearing of the court challenge anyone who purchased a STL after July 1, 2014 was entitled to be issued a STL, not just a TTL (as would have been the case under the 2014 By-Law). The Interim Order also stated that if the court upheld the 2014 By-Law, no party who acquired a STL after July 1, 2014, was to receive any benefit as a result of the Interim Order. In other words, if someone acquired a STL pursuant to the terms of the Interim Order and the by-law was ultimately upheld, people who acquired STLs pursuant to the Interim Order would be treated the same way as they would have been treated if the Interim Order had never existed. As already noted, under the terms of the 2014 By-Law they would have been issued a TTL, which required them to convert their vehicles to wheelchair accessible vehicles.

[3] The Applicants in this proceeding are all taxicab owners who purchased STLs after July 1, 2014 and who, by virtue of the Interim Order, were issued STLs by the City. Prior to being issued these STLs, the Applicants were required to sign a notice that advised them of the court challenge and acknowledged that if the court challenge was unsuccessful, they would be required to convert their STLs to TTLs and to make their vehicles wheelchair accessible (the “Notice”).

[4] In January of 2015, Stinson J. issued his decision in the court challenge (the “2015 Court Decision”). According to the City, as a result of the decision, the 2014 By-Law was upheld except for the provision requiring that all STLs be converted to TTLs by 2024. The City, therefore, wrote to the Applicants, advising them of the court’s decision and stating that as a result of that decision, the Applicants were required to convert their STLs to TTLs and make their vehicles accessible. In November of 2019, the City wrote and advised the Applicants that if they did not do so by March of 2020, their licences would be cancelled.

[5] The Applicants have brought an application to judicially review the City’s decision to cancel their STLs unless they convert their STLs to TTLs and make their vehicles wheelchair accessible. They argue that the 2015 Court Decision struck down the portion of the by-law that required a conversion upon sale (the “Sale Conversion Requirement”); that if the 2015 Court Decision upheld the Sale Conversion Requirement, they are still entitled to keep their STLs either because of a 2016 By-Law or because the City’s actions are subject to the doctrine of estoppel. They also argue that they were denied procedural fairness.

[6] For the reasons that follow, I agree with the City that the 2015 Court Decision upheld the Sale Conversion Requirement, and that the 2016 By-Law does not apply to this case nor does the doctrine of estoppel. I also agree that in the special circumstances of this case, it is appropriate for us to decide the issue rather than remitting the matter to the original decision-maker or to the Toronto Licensing Tribunal. The issue involves the interpretation of a court decision, something that falls squarely within our Court’s expertise. Both parties requested that this Court determine this issue, submitting that it was outside the Toronto Licensing Tribunal’s usual experience. There has already been considerable delay in determining the matter. I agree with the City that the Applicants were advised fully as to the reasons why their STLs were being cancelled. By virtue of this hearing they have now had a full opportunity to challenge the City’s decision.

Factual Background

City Council Considers and Adopts the 2014 By-Law

[7] On February 20, 2014, Toronto City Council considered a report entitled “The Taxicab Industry Review-Final Report.” Among other things, the staff who wrote the Report, recommended that City Council:

(a) Create the TTL, a new class of taxicab licence that would require that the holder operate a wheelchair-accessible vehicle; and

(b) Require that all STLs be converted to TTLs upon sale to a new purchaser, beginning January 1, 2019 (the “Sale Conversion Requirement).

[8] The Sale Conversion Requirement was the main strategy that the City Staff recommended to increase the availability of wheelchair accessible taxicabs in Toronto. Over time, it was anticipated that this would result in a 100 per cent conversion and that the only licences in existence would be TTL licences.

[9] At its meeting in February of 2014, City Council amended the staff recommendations to accelerate the implementation date of the Sale Conversion Requirement to July 1, 2014, and to adopt a deadline of 2024 for all STLs to be converted to TTLs (the “Conversion Deadline”).

[10] As a result of these decisions, on June 13, 2014, City Council enacted By-Law No. 503-2014, (the “2014 By-Law”), which was to come into force on July 1, 2014. The relevant sections read as follows:

§ 545-131. Definitions.

As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:

ACCESSIBLE VEHICLE - A motor vehicle equipped as a physically disabled passenger vehicle in accordance with R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 629, as amended, made under the Highway Traffic Act, as amended, and the Canadian Standards Association CAN3-D409-M84 vehicle standards, as amended.

STANDARD TAXICAB - A taxicab in respect of which a taxicab owner's licence was issued before July 29, 1999, and includes all taxicabs in respect of which licences were issued as a result of a sale or transfer of a standard taxicab before July 1, 2014.

TORONTO TAXICAB - A taxicab in respect of which an owner's licence is first issued after July 1, 2014.

§ 545-140. Transition to Toronto Taxicab licences.

A. Effective July 1, 2014, no standard, ambassador and accessible taxicab owner's licences shall be issued.

B. A standard or ambassador taxicab owner's licence which is valid and subsisting as of July 1, 2014 may be renewed as such upon the expiry of the term of the licence and the taxicab may continue to operate as a standard or ambassador taxicab in accordance with this article until the earlier of:

(1) the conversion of the licence to a Toronto Taxicab licence;

(2) the sale of the standard or ambassador taxicab; and

(3) July 1, 2024.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, no taxicab may be operated as a standard or ambassador taxicab after July 1, 2024 and no standard or ambassador taxicab licence may be renewed for any period past July 1, 2024.

§ 545-148. Sale of a taxicab; issuance of new licence to purchaser.

A. No owner's licence shall be transferred, but, subject to any other provisions of this chapter, an owner of a standard, ambassador or Toronto Taxicab may sell his or her taxicab and its equipment to any individual person licensed as a taxicab driver under this chapter, and upon the sale the owner's licence issued in respect of the taxicab shall be terminated.

C. Subject to Subsection D, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division may, in its discretion, issue a Toronto Taxicab licence to the purchaser of a taxicab and its equipment subject to the following conditions: …

§545-165. Vehicle type for accessible and Toronto Taxicabs.

Every vehicle used as an accessible or Toronto Taxicab shall be an accessible vehicle.

[11] These provisions had the following effects:

a. 545-140A and 545-148C prohibited MLS from issuing STLs after July 1, 2014;

b. 545-140B(2) made the Sale Conversion Requirement effective July 1, 2014;

c. 545-140B(3) and 545-140C set a Conversion Deadline of July 1, 2024;

d. 545-148C authorized MLS to issue only TTLs to taxicab purchasers; and

e. 545-165 required every TTL holder to operate an accessible vehicle.

The Court Challenge and the Interim Order

[12] Prior to the 2014 By-Law coming into force, a group of taxicab owners commenced a court application challenging the validity of the 2014 By-Law, including the Sale Conversion Requirement and the Conversion Deadline. On June 25, 2014, Stinson J. issued an interim order that suspended the City’s implementation of these provisions until the court challenge could be decided (the “Interim Order”). The Interim Order contained the following provisions:

THIS COURT ORDERS that the City of Toronto is hereby enjoined from acting upon or implementing Sections 545-140(A) [the section that prohibited the City from issuing STLs after July 1, 2014], 140(B)(2)[the Sale Conversion Requirement], 140(B)(3) [the Conversion Deadline], and 545-149(G) pursuant to [the 2014 By-Law] as they may apply to Standard Taxicab Licence (STL) holders until the final adjudication of the Application by the Superior Court of Justice so as to permit the issuance of an STL to the purchaser upon the sale or purchase of the standard taxicab.
THIS COURT ORDERS that in the event that [the 2014 By-Law] is upheld by the Superior Court of Justice, no rights are conferred by this Order that would entitle a party who acquires an STL after June 30, 2014 to be treated as if they had been an STL holder prior to July 1, 2014.

The Applicants Purchase Taxicab Licenses

[13] On July 9, 2014 the Applicant, Mr. Abdy, purchased a vehicle to operate as a taxicab for $190,000.00. On July 18, 2014, Mr. Abdy was given a notice (the “Notice”) that he signed advising him of the following:

(a) The existence of the 2014 By-Law, which came into effect on July 1, 2014, and that under that By-Law TTLs were to be issued to “qualified purchasers of standard taxicabs.”

(b) That the 2014 By-Law was being challenged in court.

(c) That, as an interim measure, the Court had ordered that STLs may be issued to the purchasers of standard taxicabs (the Interim Order).

(d) That the final decision of the court could affect the purchaser’s STL. In particular, if the 2014 By-Law were found to be valid, the purchaser would be required to immediately convert his STL to a TTL and be subject to all the TTL rules, including the fact that all vehicles must be wheelchair accessible.

(e) That Municipal Standards would keep them advised of all developments as they became known.

[14] After the Notice was signed by Mr. Abdy (and the vendor), the City approved the sales agreement between them on July 21, 2014.

[15] The Applicant, Mr. Suleiman, purchased his taxicab licence in July of 2014 for $195,000.00. On August 26, 2014 he signed the Notice.

[16] The Applicant, Mr. Marwah, purchased his taxicab licence in July of 2014 for about $175,000.00. He signed the Notice on September 25, 2014.

[17] Thus, at the time that all three Applicants purchased and received their STLs, they knew that if the court challenge to the 2014 By-Law was dismissed they would immediately be required to convert their STLs to TTLs, which in turn would require them to make their vehicles wheelchair accessible. They also knew that it was only by virtue of the Interm Order that they were receiving STLs, as opposed to TTLs.

The Court Issues Its Decision

[18] On January 30, 2015, Stinson J. issued his decision on the challenge to the 2014 By-Law. In that decision he found as follows:

[113] For the above reasons, I conclude that the resolution of City Council and the consequent by-law amendment providing for a mandatory deadline for the conversion of all taxi licences to TTLs were illegally passed. Given the significant impact of this change, I consider this a case in which I should exercise my discretion to quash that resolution and that portion of the by-law and I so order. The remainder of the TTL regime was, in my view, validly enacted. The rest of the relief sought is refused, accordingly.

[19] According to the City of Toronto, the effect of the 2015 Court Decision was to render the Conversion Deadline (of 2024) invalid, but to confirm the validity of the Sale Conversion Requirement. According to the Applicants, both the Conversion Deadline and the Sale Conversion Requirement were found to be invalid. This is a threshold issue on this judicial review application.

Events Following the 2015 Court Decision

[20] Following the 2015 Court Decision, the City’s Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (“MLS”) decided to give all purchasers who had been issued STLs after July 1, 2014, by virtue of the Interim Order (“Interim Purchasers” who included the Applicants), time to convert their licenses to TTLs. While they allowed them to keep operating, they refused to accept their annual renewal payments.

[21] On February 17, 2016, the City sent letters to each of the Interim Purchasers reminding them that they were required to convert their STLs to TTLs and to register wheelchair accessible vehicles. The MLS made a note on each Interim Purchaser’s record in its licensing system, visible to all counter staff, that stated that the Interim Purchasers were required to convert their STLs to TTLs. Copies of the letters sent to the Applicants and the notes made on their files formed part of the record before us on this application.

[22] On July 26, 2016, the City sent another letter to all Interim Purchasers, including the Applicants, advising them that they had to convert their STLs to TTLs by September 2, 2016 or the MLS would remove their taxicab plates and cancel their licences at the next renewal date.

[23] The MLS did not follow through with this threat. According to the City, the hope was that the Interim Purchasers would come into voluntary compliance. As a result, they continued to allow the Applicants to operate their taxicabs, while refusing to accept their annual renewal payments so that they could renew their licences.

[24] The record discloses that the MLS had email correspondence with a representative of one of the Applicants, Mr. Suleiman, in which they continued to advise him of the need for all Interim Purchasers to convert their licences.

[25] On November 28, 2019, the MLS wrote to the Applicants advising them that they had to sell their Standard Taxicabs or convert them to TTLs by March 31, 2020 or their licences would be cancelled. Shortly thereafter the Applicants brought this application. Given the COVID-19 crisis and its effect on court proceedings, all parties agreed that the status quo would remain pending a decision by the court on the application.

[26] The Applicants are the only Interim Purchasers who are still operating non-accessible taxicabs.

[27] In 2016, the City Council changed course and revoked the changes provided for in the 2014 By-Law. No more TTLs were ever issued, and anyone who had a STL was allowed to continue to operate until their next renewal application (unless they were in breach of the previous by-law). All STL renewal applications were to be investigated and processed by the MLS and if rejected, the applicants were to receive written notice of that rejection and to be advised of their right to set a hearing before the Toronto Licensing Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).

Analysis

Issues Raised

[28] The Applicants make the following submissions on this application. First, they argue that contrary to the City’s position, the 2015 Court Decision rendered the Sale Conversion Requirement in the 2014 By-Law invalid. Therefore, they argue that the City erred when it demanded that they convert their STLs to TTLs.

[29] Second, the Applicants state that if they are wrong on this point, it does not matter, since under the regime which has been in place since 2016, anyone who has a STL is entitled to keep it. Since the Applicants have STL licences, they argue that they are entitled to keep them.

[30] Third, the Applicants argue that the City’s conduct towards them once the Court decision was issued (allowing them to operate until giving them a deadline in 2019) means that it would be unfair for the City to be allowed to cancel their licences, and thus the City should be estopped from doing so.

[31] Finally, the Applicants submit that the City’s decision to cancel their licences was made contrary to the duty of procedural fairness, which required both reasons, and an opportunity to be heard before the Toronto Licensing Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). However, the Applicants also take the position, that if this Court agrees with their position that they should keep their licences, there is no need to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a decision; this court should decide the matter.

[32] I will deal with each of these arguments in turn.

The Result of the 2015 Court Decision

[33] The court challenge focused on whether the City had provided proper notice of its intention to pass the 2014 By-Law incorporating the TTL regime at its meeting on February 14, 2014. In dealing with this question, Stinson J. found that the City had no common law duty of procedural fairness, but that there was a Procedural By-law that required the City to give proper notice that the TTL regime would be dealt with at the February 14, 2014 meeting.

[34] After reviewing the evidence, Stinson J. found that the City had given proper notice of its intention to consider the possible implementation of the TTL regime “as described in the Referred Recommendations” at its February 14, 2014 meeting. However, this finding was subject to one exception “the imposition of a mandatory conversion of STLs to TTLs” (2015 Court Decision, para. 71). As put by Stinson J.:

[72] While I have found that adequate notice was given of City Council’s intention to consider the TTL regime as contained in the Referred Recommendations, the same cannot be said about the issue of imposing a mandatory deadline for all taxi licences to be converted to TTLs. The Framework Report issued June 13, 2013 said only that the City was “evaluating options” to expedite the transition from STLs to TTLs. In the Final Staff Report, nothing was said about a mandatory conversion date for STLs to become TTLs. The Referred Recommendations merely provided for the requirement that, effective January 1, 2019, STLs would be converted to TTLs when they were transferred to the new owner. In effect, this proposal would allow all STL owners to continue to enjoy the benefits of that category of licence as long as they were alive and continued to own the licence. There was no mention of a date or deadline for conversion.

[73] It is fair to say, then that there was no advance notice of the City’s intention to consider and enact a change that would force persons who continued to own STLs to convert their licences to TTLs. This issue was not on the published agenda for the February 19, 2014 Council debate concerning the TTL regime. During that meeting, without any prior notice, a motion was proposed and passed to establish June 30, 2024 as the final date for owners of STLs and Ambassador Licences to convert them to TTLs.

[74] As a result, I find that the City gave no notice of its intention to impose a deadline for the mandatory conversion of STLs to TTLs by June 30, 2024, or any other date. Such failure was, in my view, a breach of the notice requirements of the City’s Procedural By-Law.

[35] The challengers to the 2014 By-Law then made a submission that the City breached its Procedural By-Law by treating the Referred Recommendations as properly being before City Council on February 19, 2014. Stinson J. dismissed this argument, finding that at best, any breach was purely technical. In contrast, he states at para. 90; “I reach a different conclusion with respect to the implementation of the mandatory conversion deadline,” and further at para. 95; “In my view, the failure of the City to provide notice of its intention to enact the 2024 mandatory deadline rises to the level of a ‘substantive breach’”:

[98] I therefore conclude that this breach of the notice requirement contained in the Procedural By-Law was substantive and went to the root of the validity of that section of the by-law which provided for a mandatory conversion date. As a result, I find that the 2024 mandatory conversion date aspect of the by-law was enacted illegally and should be quashed.

[36] According to the Applicants, the other part of the 2014 By-Law that was passed without notice was City Council’s decision to have the new regime start on July 1, 2014 when the Referred Recommendations had contemplated a 2019 start date. If the new regime did not start until 2019, then the transactions through which the Applicants acquired their STLs would not be caught by any of its provisions, including the Sales Conversion Requirement.

[37] The problem with the Applicants’ submission on this point is that nowhere in his decision does Stinson J. make a finding that the July 1, 2014 start date provided for in the by-law should be quashed on the basis of procedural fairness. In fact, he states the opposite at para. 104:

As discussed above, there was no procedural unfairness in Council enacting the TTL, or imposing a 2014 start date. (emphasis added).

[38] In the section entitled “Conclusion and Disposition” reproduced again for convenience, Stinson J. is clear about what portion of the by-law he is quashing (the Conversion Deadline) and clear about the fact that the rest of the 2014 By-Law was validly enacted (including the Sales Conversion Requirement). As put in the decision:

CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION

[113] For the above reasons, I conclude that the resolution of City Council and the consequent by-law amendment providing for a mandatory deadline for the conversion of all taxi licences to TTLs were illegally passed. Given the significant impact of that change, I consider this a case in which I should exercise my discretion to quash that resolution and that portion of the by-law and I so order. The remainder of the TTL regime was, in my view, validly enacted. The rest of the relief sought is refused, accordingly.

The Effect of the 2015 Court Decision on the Applicants’ Rights

[39] As a result of the 2015 Court Decision, the Sales Conversion Requirement of the 2014 By-Law applied to the Applicants when they purchased their taxicab licences. This meant that, were it not for the Interim Order, upon that purchase they were only entitled to receive TTLs, not STLs. The only reason they received STLs was because the Interim Order required the MLS to continue to issue STLs (and not TTLs) until the court challenge was over. However, the Interim Order was clear- no lasting rights could be acquired under it unless the court challenge affecting those rights was sustained. If it was not, all Interim Purchasers (including the Applicants) were subject to the TTL regime.

[40] In other words, as of the date of the 2015 Court Decision, the Applicants’ STLs reverted to being what they would have been if the Interim Order had never been put in place, namely, TTLs.

The Effect of the 2016 By-Law

[41] As of the date that the 2016 By-Law was enacted, the Applicants were not entitled to STLs, nor had the STLs they were holding ever been renewed. To consider them STL licensees under the 2016 By-Law would be to give them a right they would never have had were it not for the Interim Order, which in turn would violate the explicit terms of that Order.

[42] For these reasons, I find that there is no merit to the Applicants’ submission that they are entitled to a renewal of their STLs by virtue of the 2016 By-Law.

Estoppel Argument

[43] I also find that there is no merit to the Applicants’ estoppel argument. The Applicants knew when they received their STLs that those licences would become TTLs if the Sale Conversion Requirement was not struck down by the court. This was made clear in the Notice that they all signed.

[44] The City never gave them any cause to believe that after the 2015 Court Decision it considered that they were entitled to continue to hold STLs. In fact, it did the opposite, by not allowing them to renew those licences.

[45] The City started demanding that the Applicants take the steps that would allow them to hold TTLs in 2016. The fact that the City did not act to actually cancel their licences until 2019 is not conduct that could reasonably be interpreted as conferring a right on the Applicants to keep their STLs.

[46] As a result of the City’s delay, the Applicants have received a benefit they would not otherwise have been entitled to – the right to continue to drive their non-accessible taxicabs from January 30, 2015 until the present date.

Procedural Fairness

[47] The Applicants allege that they were never given reasons for the City’s decision to cancel their licences. I disagree. First, with respect to Mr. Suleiman, the record contains correspondence between his representative and a representative from the MLS that took place at the beginning of October 2015. In that correspondence, Mr. Suleiman’s representative was advised that City Council had considered a motion to grandfather all STLs, but that the motion was defeated on September 30, 2015. Therefore, the 2015 Decision (which was enclosed) applied and Mr. Suleiman had to convert his licence to a TTL.

[48] On February 17, 2016 MLS wrote to all the Applicants advising them as follows:

This is further to the Notice which was provided to you when you were issued a Standard taxicab owner’s licence upon your purchase of a standard taxicab on August 1, 2014.

The Court challenge referred to in the enclosed Notice was dismissed on January 30, 2015. Following this, the Licensing and Standards Committee considered the matter further. As a result of City Council’s decisions on September 30, 2015, only TTL licences can be issued to purchasers of standard taxicabs.

Accordingly, the Standard taxicab owner’s licence which was issued to you as a result of the interim measure referred to in the enclosed Notice must be converted to a TTL licence no later than April 8, 2016.

Alternatively, if you wish to do so, you can sell your taxicab before April 8, 2016 without converting it to a TTL. If you sell the taxicab, the qualified purchaser will be issued a TTL licence and must comply with all of the regulations applicable to TTL taxicabs.

Please contact……. for further information regarding next steps for converting your licence.

[49] The above letter gives the reasons for the City’s decision. As set out in the Notice that all the Applicants signed when they were issued their STLs, the Court challenge had been dismissed and they were all now required to convert their STLs to TTLs by April 8, 2016.

[50] When the Applicants did not comply, the City wrote again on July 29, 2016 stating:

This is further to the enclosed letter dated February 17, 2016.

According to our records you have not taken any steps to either sell your taxicab or convert it to a TTL taxicab. By this final notice we are giving you one last opportunity to either sell or convert your taxicab. As you are no longer entitled to operate the taxicab as a standard taxicab you must sell or convert it by September 2, 2016. If you do not sell or convert your taxicab MLS will remove the plate on or after September 3, 2016 without further notice and your licence will subsequently cancel at your next renewal.

Please contact Richard Mucha, Manager at (416) 392-3084 if you have any questions.

[51] This letter reiterated the reasons for the conversion and the cancellation that would follow if the conversion was not made.

[52] When the Applicants failed to comply, the City wrote them a final letter on November 28, 2019 that read as follows:

This letter is further to letters dated February 17, 2016, July 29, 2016, as well as a “Deemed to Continue” letter that was provided as your licence has not been renewed since August 1, 2015.

As a reminder, the Court challenge referred to in the enclosed Notice was dismissed on January 30, 2015. Municipal Licensing and Standards has carefully considered this decision and consulted with Legal Services as to implementation. The Standard Taxicab Owner’s licence which was issued to you as a result of the interim measure referred to in the enclosed Notice must be converted to a Toronto Taxicab Licence (TTL) licence. As well, all outstanding renewal fees must be paid to bring your licence into good standing.

Alternatively, if you wish to do so, you can sell your taxicab without converting to a TTL. If you sell the taxicab, the qualified purchaser will be issued a TTL licence and must comply with all of the regulations applicable to the TTL taxicabs.

This letter will serve as final notice. If you do not sell or convert your taxicab by March 31, 2020, your licence will cancel.

Please contact me at…..if you have any questions.

[53] Again, this letter sets out why the City is requiring that the Applicants either convert or sell their taxicabs by March 31, 2020. It also sets out what will happen if they do not do so. Thus, there is no merit to the Applicants’ submission that they were never advised by the City as to the reasons why they made the decision they did.

[54] The second part of the Applicants’ submission on procedural fairness centres on the fact that they were not given an opportunity to be heard on the issue before their licences were cancelled. In this regard, on August 25, 2016, a lawyer for Mr. Abdy contacted MLS in writing advising them that Mr. Abdy had been denied a renewal of his licence and that he was requesting a hearing before the Tribunal to contest that denial. The matter never proceeded to a hearing before the Tribunal.

[55] After receiving the November 2019 letter, the Applicants retained counsel who contacted the City to discuss the matter in January of 2020. On January 21, 2020 counsel for the Applicants wrote to counsel for the City asking for his opinion as to whether the dispute between them should go to the Tribunal or to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice “as a JR.” It would appear that as a result of those discussions, counsel for the Applicants decided that the more appropriate venue for determining this dispute was the Divisional Court.

[56] The main dispute between the parties is the interpretation of a court decision. This is a matter that is very much within the expertise of the Court. Furthermore, given the fact that the parties have brought their dispute to the Court and the delay that would be caused by referring this matter back to either the MLS or the Tribunal, we agreed to hear and determine the issue. In doing so, we by no means wish to set a precedent that parties in a licencing dispute may proceed to court, without first exhausting their administrative remedies, including going to the Tribunal. We understand and appreciate the need for the court to respect the legislature’s choices as to where disputes of this kind should be heard. However, this is an unusual circumstance, both in terms of the issue (the interpretation of a court decision) and the delay (the status of the Applicants’ licences has been pending since 2015). In view of these unique circumstances, allowing the matter to proceed before us promotes the interests of the administration of justice.

[57] The Applicants have now had a full opportunity to make their submissions. Thus, they have had a full hearing and cannot argue that they have been denied procedural fairness. In their factum, they acknowledged that they wished this Court to decide the matter rather than remitting it back to the MLS or the Tribunal, if the Court decided that they were right. The Court has decided against them. However, this is not a legitimate reason to advance an argument that we were not the appropriate forum to make the decision.

Conclusion

[58] For these reasons the application is dismissed. As agreed by the parties, the City, as the successful party, is entitled to its costs from the Applicants, fixed in the amount of $15,000.00, all inclusive.

Sachs J.

I agree _______________________________

Backhouse J.