Post on 07-Apr-2018
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 1/34
Table of Contents
Part I Overview Page 1
Part II A Concise Statement of the Facts Page 2
A) Evidence that the replacing of Standard licences by Ambassador licenceshad the effect of excluding a disproportionate number of racialized taxidrivers from the benefits of Standard licences Page 6
A) Differential treatment of Standard licences and Ambassador licences Page 8
B) Promises made to Ambassador owners Page 11
Part III Issues and Argument Page 16
A) Which areas of discrimination are at issue?
Page 17
Services Page 17
Employment Page 18
Contract Page 20
B) Does the evidence establish constructive discrimination pursuant toSection 11 of the Human Rights Code? Page 20
C) What are the appropriate remedies?
Page 25
Eliminating the differences between Standard and Ambassador licences Page 26
Compensation for financial loss Page 28
Compensation for injury to dignity Page 29
Part IV Orders Requested Page 30
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 2/34
Part I Overview
1. The Complainant is one of the 1,400 owners of Ambassador taxicab licences issued
by the Respondent. There are approximately 3,455 taxicabs with Standard licences
that were issued by the Respondent. There are two primary differences between these
two kinds of taxicab licences. First, Standard licences can be sold on the open market
whereas Ambassador licences revert to the Respondent when the owners can no
longer use them. Second, Standard licences permit the licence owner to have the taxi
driven by any number of taxi drivers whereas Ambassador licences do not permit
anyone other than the licence owner to drive the taxicab. Thus Ambassador licences
generate less income and are much less valuable than Standard licences.
2. Most of the Standard licences were issued by the Respondent to people who were not
racialized. In 1998, the Respondent stopped issuing Standard licences and began
issuing Ambassador licences instead. At the time, the taxicab drivers who were
potential recipients of taxicab licences were overwhelmingly racialized. Thus the
Respondent’s decision to maintain the existing Standard licences but to issue only
Ambassador licences in the future created the present two-tier system in which a
disproportionate number of racialized people hold inferior licences. This action of the
Respondent resulted in constructive discrimination pursuant to the Human Rights
2
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 3/34
Code, and the Complainant is a victim of that discrimination.
3. The Complainant requests an order that, within one year from the date of the order,
the Respondent be required to provide equal benefits to all taxicab licence owners by
eliminating the differences between Standard and Ambassador licences. The
Complainant further requests compensation in the amount of $160,000 for his loss
arising from the fact that he could not rent his taxicab to shift drivers for the eight
year period of his holding of an Ambassador licence. In addition, the Complainant
requests compensation in the amount of $50,000 for the injury to his dignity, feelings
and self-respect caused by the Respondent’s differential treatment of Standard
licences and Ambassador licences.
Part II A Concise Statement of the Facts
4. There are approximately 3,455 Standard licences and approximately 1,400
Ambassador taxicab licences in the City of Toronto.
Testimony of Bruce Robertson, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 30, line 25;ibid., page 32, line 7.
5. The two essential differences between Standard and Ambassador taxicab licences are
that Standard licences can be transferred while Ambassador licences cannot, and that
Standard licence owners can have any number of drivers operating their taxicabs
while Ambassador taxis can only be driven by their owners.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 7, 2011, page 114, line 24 to page 115, line 8.
3
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 4/34
6. In the taxi industry, Standard licence holders are referred to as “owners” while the
derogatory term “permit holders” is often used to refer to Ambassador drivers.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 12, 2010, page 19, line 9 to page 21,line 4.
7. The average sale price in 1993, 1998 and 2010 of a Standard taxicab licence was
approximately $50,000, $80,000 and $175,000, respectively.
Testimony of Bruce Robertson, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 29, lines 11 to13; “ Average taxicab sale prices 1990 – Present ”, City’s Book of Documents,Volume 4, Tab 17.
8. In 1989, shift drivers paid $400 or $450 a week for the use of a taxicab for one 12
hour shift a day.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 12, 2010, page 45, lines 14 to 21.
9. The Complainant, Asafo Addai, obtained an Ambassador licence in 2003 and has
operated an Ambassador taxicab since then.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 12, 2010, page 28, line 1 to page 31,line 7.
10. The by-law changes of 1998, which introduced Ambassador licences, were based on
the conclusion that the best way to address the problems that had been identified in
4
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 5/34
the taxi industry was to have owner-operated taxis. However, the changes only
addressed the problems partially: namely, they were addressed with respect to
Ambassador licences but not with respect to the Standard licences that were
grandfathered.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 7, 2011, page 119, lines 3 to 19.
11. The Manager of Licensing Enforcement was unable to suggest any answer to the
question of why Ambassador licence holders should not be allowed to transfer their
licences to other owner-operators.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 7, 2011, page 119, line 23 to page 128, line 7.
12. Prior to 1998, there were two waiting lists for new taxicab licences issued by the City;
there was an owner’s list and a driver’s list. The proportion of issues that were given
to owners and to drivers varied over the years.
Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 173, line 17 to page 174, line 11.
13. The requirements for a taxicab driver to place his name on the driver’s waiting list,
and to keep his name on the list, were the same after 1998, when the only licences
being issued were Ambassador licences, as they were before 1998, when Standard
licences were being issued.
Testimony of Glenn Steeves, Transcript of June 9, 2011, page 12, lines 11 to 19.
5
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 6/34
14. The requirements for a taxicab driver to place his name on the driver’s waiting list
are: the driver must drive a taxicab on a full-time basis for three consecutive years
while having a taxicab driver’s licence and a provincial driver’s licence without a
lapse or suspension in that three-year period, the driver must not have been a taxicab
owner or partner or shareholder in a corporation in the preceding five years, the driver
must renew his taxicab licence on an annual basis and drive a taxicab on a full-time
basis.
Testimony of Glenn Steeves, Transcript of June 9, 2011, page 10, line 18 to page11, line 5.
15. The requirements for a taxicab driver to keep his name on the drivers’ list are: having
a taxicab driver’s licence in good standing, which includes having a provincial
driver’s licence, driving a taxicab on a full-time basis, and completing statutory
declaration forms that indicate who he works for, the income he earns, and verify that
he drives a taxicab on a full-time basis. Moreover, the driver must declare any other
income he earns from any source.
Testimony of Glenn Steeves, Transcript of June 9, 2011, page 11, lines 10 to 24.
16. The current annual renewal fee for Ambassador licences is “nine hundred dollars and
something” and the current annual renewal fee for Standard licences is $1200 or
$1300.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 25, lines 9 to 24.
6
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 7/34
17. There have not been any discussions at City staff level of whether something so
valuable as a Standard plate should require a higher renewal fee than the Ambassador
plate, which is of comparably much less value.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 25, line 25 to page29, line 12.
Evidence that the replacing of Standard licences by Ambassador licences had the
effect of excluding a disproportionate number of racialized taxi drivers from the
benefits of Standard licences
18. John Duffy, the publisher of Taxi News, is an expert on Toronto’s taxi industry.
Testimony of Bruce Robertson, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 65, lines 21 to25; Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 57, lines 19 to25; Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 57, lines 20 to25.
19. Taxi ownership in Toronto reflects succeeding waves of immigration. In the 1940s
and 1950s many Jews drove taxicabs. In the 1950s, a large number of Hungarians and
other Eastern Europeans were issued plates. In the 1960s, a large number of Greeks
entered the taxi industry and were eventually issued plates. In the 1970s, people from
the Middle East began driving taxis. By the 1980s, there were large numbers of
drivers from various parts of India, Sikkim, and Pakistan. By the later 1990s, there
were many drivers from the Horn of Africa.
7
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 8/34
“Immigration has always fueled taxi industry” by John Duffy, Taxi News, 7December 2009, Complainant’s Book of Documents, Volume 4, Tab Y.
20. Mr. Duffy’s description of the participation in the taxi industry of “waves of
immigration” is consistent with Sajid Mughal’s understanding.
Testimony of Sajid Mughal , Transcript of May 14, 2010, page 85, line 18 to page86, line 20.
21. From 1981 to the present time, more and more people of colour have been involved in
the taxi industry.
Testimony of Bruce Robertson, Transcript of May 10, 2010, pages 69 to 70;Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 54, lines 12 to 22.
22. The last time that a Standard licence was issued by the City was in 1993.
Testimony of Bruce Roberston, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 52, lines 5 to 24.
23. Very few Standard licences were issued by the City after 1982.
Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, Page 144, Lines 4 to 8.
24. The holders of Ambassador licences are overwhelmingly racialized.
Pictures and names of Ambassador licence holders, Exhibit 12; Testimony of
Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 12, 2011, page 34, lines 4 to 7; Testimony of Sajid Mughal, Transcript of May 14, 2011, page 91, lines 10 to 14.
8
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 9/34
25. The majority of Ambassador licence holders are from Pakistan, Somalia, Ghana,
Eritrea, Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, India, and Bangladesh.
Testimony of Sajid Mughal, Transcript of May 11, 2010, page 91, lines 15 to 25.
26. The Complainant, Asafo Addai, was born and raised in Ghana. Mr. Addai is a Black
man.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 11, 2010, page 59, line 13; Ambassador licence holders picture of Asafo Addai, Exhibit 12; Vehicle Licence
Application Individual , Book of Documents of the City of Toronto, Volume 2,Tab 20.
27. The proportion of Ambassador licence holders who are racialized is significantly
greater than the proportion of Standard licence holders in 1998 who were racialized.
List of Standard plate holders 1998, List of Ambassador plate holders, Exhibit 12.
28. While the proportion of racialized people who owned Standard licences in 2010 is a
little higher then the proportion of racialized persons who owned Standard licences in
1998, it is still significantly less then the proportion of Ambassador licence holders
who are racialized. Moreover, those racialized people who obtained Standard licences
after 1998 had to buy them on the open market, as no new ones were issued by the
City after 1993.
List of Standard plate holders 2010, List of Ambassador plate holders, Exhibit 12.
B) Differential treatment of Standard licences and Ambassador licences
9
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 10/34
29. When Ambassador owners have allowed their taxis to be driven by other drivers, they
have been charged in Provincial court.
Testimony of Bruce Roberston, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 143, lines 3 to 7.
30. The by-laws require that a Standard plate owner “provide a motor vehicle” to any
person who leases the plate. The practice, however, is that the lessee purchases a
vehicle and puts it in the plate owner’s name. When it was put to the Manager of
Licensing Enforcement that “there is no reasonable interpretation of the word
‘provides’ that includes” this practice, he replied “I am not sure I concur with
‘reasonable interpretation’. You are asking me if the practice happens, and I have
confirmed it does.”
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 83, line 6 to page86, line 15.
31. With respect to this practice, the Director of Licensing Services in the Municipal
Licensing and Standards Division in the City of Toronto was asked by the presiding
Vice-Chair, “And if Mr. Rosenthal at some point suggested that that was sort of
playing fast and loose with the rules to benefit the Standard licence owners, what
would you say to that?” The witness replied, “I would say it is not the business of our
office to look into that.”
Testimony of Bruce Robertson, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 100, lines 10 to16.
10
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 11/34
32. There are taxis that are under contract to the TTC as part of the “WheelTrans
Contract”. The contract provides that the taxicabs must be owner-driven. In the fall of
2009 it came to light that a number of the taxis that are providing the service under
the contract are being driven by people other than the owners of the taxicabs. There
are even some Standard taxicabs owned by corporations that are doing this work. On
May 10th, 2010 this was still under investigation.
Testimony of Bruce Roberston, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 137, line 7 to page 139, line 13; ibid., page 144, lines 11 to page 145, line 7.
33. On June 8th 2011, the Manager of Licensing Enforcement testified that he was aware
of the discovery in 2009 that there were a number of Standard licence holders that
were delivering the service through shift drivers and stated “We have an active
investigation which I am not prepared to comment on.”
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 97, lines 6 to 24.
34. Ambassador licencees must drive their taxicabs at least 36 hours per week. Standard
taxicab owners are not required to drive their taxicabs at all. Ambassador drivers can
be on the road up to a maximum of 12 hours per day. In 2003, the by-law was
changed to require that any new transfers of Standard plates had to be to licenced
taxicab drivers. However, even now there is no requirement that those who purchase
Standard licences must actually drive the taxicab at all.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 7, 2011, page 72, lines 3 to 6; page 128, line 11 to page 130, line 15.
11
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 12/34
35. There are about 1,000 corporations that own Standard licences. An Ambassador
licence cannot be owned by a corporation. The limited liability aspect of corporate
ownership could be an advantage as far as insurance. Getting insurance has been a
problem for Ambassador licence holders.
Testimony of Bruce Robertson, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 162, line 8 to page 163, line 3.
36. Of the 3,455 Standard plates that were issued, only four of them are not in
commission. However, 70 of the 1,400 Ambassador plates that were issued have been
returned to the City.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 12, 2010, page 27, lines 2 to 11.
12
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 13/34
C) Promises made to Ambassador owners
37. At the meeting of City Council concerning the 1998 changes to the taxicab by-laws,
Mayor Mel Lastman stated, “What we are saying here is we wanna make sure the
driver, because the driver is only one driver; and this was a very important point with
me or within that we brought up and we discussed, was if the driver gets sick, what
happens to the car? What happens to his family? Ah, because there is no, there is
nobody to drive the car so we said they must have insurance that covers them so
they’re, while they’re sick, they are being paid. And we are trying, we are trying hard
to cover all aspects.”
Transcript of City Council meeting of November 26 and 27, 1998, pages 42 to 43.
38. The Complainant Asafo Addai attended the City Council meeting of November 26
and 27, 1998.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 11, 2010, page 97, lines 16 to 19.
39. Mr. Addai took from the above statement by Mayor Lastman that there was going to
be a City funded program, or at least a City organized program, that would make sure
that drivers who were going to be Ambassadors would be provided for in the form of
a pension and a package.
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 101, lines 16 to 23.
40. Ambassador drivers cannot get their own insurance because it is not affordable.
13
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 14/34
Testimony of Asafo Addai, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 103, lines 8 to 16; Letter of February 12, 1999 to Wilma Walsh from Marlene O’Connor for
Sensible Insurance and Financial Services, Exhibit 6.
41. At the City Council meeting, Councilor Sandra Bussin asked, “Ok. My last question
is when I heard the Mayor’s remarks, there was a reference to the fact that there
would be a um disability coverage for a benefits package for the taxi drivers: but from
the reading of this actual motion, all that this is saying is that the ah Committee
looked at the possibility of that. I’d like to know ah whether in fact the um the
Commissioners had the opportunity to look at those costs because from what I can see
of that, it is a very costly endeavor. And the suggestion is that it’s a given. Is it a
given?” Mayor Lastman replied, “I don’t think it’s that costly. I don’t think it’s that
costly at all and I think it’s imperative. I think it’s really important because you’re
handing them a plate and you’re saying to them ‘no one else can drive that car:’ and
by saying no one else can drive that car, means that if they get sick, they have a heart
attack or something, there’s no income, and I think it’s very very important that the
family still be able to live and be able to get along. And you have to do it through
some type of insurance. I don’t know what the insurance cost. Ah, I don’t think it’s
that expensive for health insurance – particular, ah particularly if you’re in great
shape. And particularly if you live in Ontario and you have OHIP. Ah it covers most
of…well it doesn’t give you the….it covers your health, but it doesn’t cover your
income. And so this is just to cover your income, really.”
Transcript of City Council meeting of November 26 and 27, 1998, page 44.
14
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 15/34
42. The Task Force that reviewed the taxi industry in 1998 recommended that the City
develop a driver-funded benefits package to include long term disability coverage and
spousal benefits. The City legal department subsequently determined that the City had
no authority to develop or administer such a program.
The City of Toronto Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry (1998),Recommended Reforms Status Reference Tables, Table A, Reference Number 34.5, Exhibit 1, Book of Documents of the City of Toronto, Volume 4, Tab 19.
43. The only alternative way of putting a benefits program into effect that was
investigated by City staff was that Ambassador licence holders be advised in the
training program that they were now independent businessmen and should be availing
themselves of employment insurance and other benefits.
Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 162, line 18 to page 163, line 2.
44. City staff stopped investigating the possibility of benefits after Legal Services advised
(in 2002 or 2003) that it wasn’t within the City’s purview. The City of Toronto Act
was passed in 2006. It provided more powers to the City than the Municipal Act had.
City staff were asked by Committee to look at certain issues again due to those
powers.
Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 164, line 1 to page 165, line 2.
45. There was no request for a report from staff regarding the issue of benefits for
Ambassador drivers after the passing of The City of Toronto Act .
15
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 16/34
Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 170, line 1 to page 171, line 5.
46. There was to be an annual review of the taxi industry after the introduction of
Ambassador plates. No such review has taken place from 1998 to the present day.
Testimony of Richard Mucha, Transcript of June 7, 2011, page 192, lines 9 to 13;Testimony of Mark Dimuantes, Transcript of June 8, 2011, page 183, lines 6 to 13;The City of Toronto Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry (1998),Recommended Reforms Status Reference Tables, Table A, Reference Number 49.2, Exhibit 1, Book of Documents of the City of Toronto, Volume 4, Tab 19.
47. Those drivers who took Ambassador licences were expecting the City to review the
situation periodically from the point of view of seeing how they were faring in that
new kind of taxicab. Annual reviews might have increased the possibility of a re-
visitation of the question of eliminating the Standard plates after The City of Toronto
Act gave broader powers to the City.
Testimony of Bruce Roberston, Transcript of May 10, 2010, page 165, lines 6 to19.
48. Sajid Mughal has been driving a taxicab in Toronto since early 1992. He was elected
to the Taxicab Advisory Committee when it began in the year 2000. He was the
chairman of the Taxicab Advisory Committee for its last term.
Testimony of Sajid Mughal , Transcript of May 14, 2010, page 16, lines 13 to 16;ibid., page 49, lines 7 to 24; ibid., page 55, lines 6 to 17.
16
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 17/34
49. There was a recommendation that an elected Taxicab Advisory Committee be
formed. A mandate was developed and elections were held in November 2000, but
the Taxicab Advisory Committee was disbanded in 2003.
The City of Toronto Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry (1998),Recommended Reforms Status Reference Tables, Table A, Reference Numbers18 to 23, Exhibit 1, Book of Documents of the City of Toronto, Volume 4, Tab19.
50. At the time it was introduced, Mr. Mughal liked and promoted the Ambassador
program. He found it very encouraging that a benefit package would be introduced.
Furthermore, it was indicated that one day the City would buy back the Standard
plates, making the industry a level playing field. Another very important
consideration was the indication that the City would make an arrangement that
Ambassador drivers could pick up fares from the airport.
Testimony of Sajid Mughal , Transcript of May 14, 2010, page 45, line 16 to page47, line 2.
51. Although there were discussions about the possibility of allowing Ambassador
taxicabs to pick up fares at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport, no access was
granted for Ambassador taxicabs.
The City of Toronto Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry (1998),Recommended Reforms Status Reference Tables, Table A, Reference Numbers13 (e) and 15 (2), Exhibit 1, Book of Documents of the City of Toronto, Volume4, Tab 19.
17
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 18/34
Part III Issues and Argument
52. The Human Rights Code must be interpreted broadly so as to give effect to its
overarching purpose.
[In the preamble of the Code] we find enunciated the broad policy of the Codeand it is this policy which should have effect. It is not, in my view, a soundapproach to say that according to established rules of construction no broader meaning can be given to the Code than the narrowest interpretation of the wordsemployed. The accepted rules of construction are flexible enough to enable theCourt to recognize in the construction of a human rights code the special natureand purpose of the enactment…and give it an interpretation which will advanceits broad purposes. Legislation of this type is of a special nature, not quiteconstitutional but certainly more than the ordinary – and it is for the courts to seek
out its purpose and give it effect. The Code aims at the removal of discrimination.
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536 at para. 12.
53. There is a general requirement to construe human rights legislation expansively and
in a manner that advances the underlying purposes of the legislation.
Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 at para. 73.
A) Which areas of discrimination are at issue?
54. Mr. Addai’s claim of constructive discrimination is unusual because it falls within the
scope of each of three different social areas regulated by the Code: services,
employment and contract.
18
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 19/34
55. While “services”, “employment” and “contract” are not defined in the Code, these
terms should be given a broad and liberal interpretation in a manner that gives effect
to the Code’s remedial purpose of removing discrimination.
Services
56. It has been held that “services” under the Code includes “something which is of
benefit that is provided by one person to another or to the public.”
Braithwaite v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2005 HRTO 31 (CanLII) at para. 22.
57. In reaching that conclusion, the Tribunal noted the definition given to “service” in the
French Language Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.32, s.1, as follows:
“service” means any service or procedure that is provided to the public by agovernment agency or institution of the Legislature and includes allcommunications for the purpose.
Braithwaite v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2005 HRTO 31 (CanLII) at para. 20.
58. The ability to own and operate a taxicab in Toronto is a benefit that the City grants to
taxicab licence owners. The City is authorized to regulate the taxicab industry in
Toronto and it does so by issuing licences under terms and conditions that it
determines and enforces. Without a valid licence from the City, no person can legally
own or operate a taxicab.
19
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 20/34
59. Mr. Addai applied for and was issued an Ambassador taxicab licence in 2003. As
long as he meets certain ongoing requirements as determined by the City from time to
time, Mr. Addai is authorized to own and operate an Ambassador taxicab.
60. This service provided by the City to Mr. Addai gives him and other taxicab licence
holders the benefit of being able to own and operate an Ambassador taxicab.
Employment
61. Section 5 of the Code states that “every person has a right to equal treatment with
respect to employment”.
62. “[W]ith respect to employment” is carefully worded to include more than the
traditional employer and employee relationship. The Board confirmed this as follows:
Section 5(1) does not state that “no employer shall deny equal treatment to anemployee”. Indeed, there is no definition of “employment” in the Code. Rather,section 5(1) involves discrimination “with respect to employment”. “Equaltreatment with respect to employment without discrimination” includes morethan the traditional employer-employee relationship….An infringement of section 5(1) can occur between an employee and other persons who are not“employers” in the traditional sense.
Payne v. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Co Ltd., 2001 CanLII 26231 (ON HRT) at page 9.
20
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 21/34
63. It is submitted that an interpretation of the words “with respect to employment” in
Section 5 of the Code that includes all relationships where a person’s employment or
ability to work in a chosen profession is at stake would be consistent with the Code’s
purpose of ensuring that “each person feels a part of the community and able to
contribute fully to the development and well-being of the community and the
Province”.
Preamble of the Code.
64. Although taxicab licence owners and drivers are not technically employees of the
City, the City’s authority to regulate the taxicab industry gives the City some aspects
of control over the terms and conditions of employment of taxicab drivers and licence
owners that are similar to those that a traditional employer would have over the terms
and conditions of employment of its employees.
65. The City determines who can and cannot work in the taxicab industry as an owner or
a driver, and also largely determines the conditions of the work. As a result, any
failure by the City to administer the taxicab licensing system in a manner consistent
with the Code has far reaching consequences since the only recourse for victims of
discrimination would be to work outside Toronto or to change their profession.
Employment in the taxi industry in Toronto is entirely controlled by the City.
21
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 22/34
Contract
66. Section 3 of the Code protects the right to contract on equal terms without
discrimination on protected grounds.
67. The City and Mr. Addai are in a contractual relationship whereby Mr. Addai gives
consideration in the form of money (i.e., application and renewal fees) and
compliance with applicable regulations (e.g. vehicle, training, etc.) in exchange for
the benefit of owning and operating a taxicab.
B) Does the evidence establish constructive discrimination pursuant to Section 11 of
the Human Rights Code?
68. Section 11 of the Code prohibits the “exclusion, restriction or preference of a group
of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination” resulting
from a “requirement, qualification or factor.”
69. Canadian courts and tribunals have long recognized that an intention to discriminate
is not a necessary element in proving a claim of discrimination under human rights
legislation.
Ontario Human Rights Commission v. Simpsons-Sears, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 536, at para. 13.
22
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 23/34
70. The following passage is often quoted from the Abella Report:
Discrimination…means practices or attitudes that have, whether by design or impact, the effect of limiting an individual’s or a groups right to the opportunitiesgenerally available because of the attributed rather than actual characteristics. …
It is not a question of whether this discrimination is motivated by an intentionaldesire to obstruct someone’s potential, or whether it is the accidental by-productof innocently motivated practices or systems. If the barrier is affecting certaingroups in a disproportionately negative way, it is a signal that the practices thatlead to this adverse impact may be discriminatory.
C.N.R. v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1987] 1. S.C.R. 1114 at para. 34.
71. Prior to 1999, all taxicab owner licences issued by the City were Standard taxicab
licences. The Respondent changed its by-laws in 1998 so that no additional Standard
licences would be issued after that date, existing Standard licences were
grandfathered, and the Ambasssador taxicab licence was created.
72. Standard taxicab licences are superior to Ambassador licences in many respects. The
primary advantages of Standard licences are that they are transferable for market
value and that they permit the taxicab to be driven by any number of drivers. In
particular, Standard taxicabs can be on the road 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
Thus Standard taxicab licence owners obtain income by leasing or renting their
taxicabs to other people. In contrast, Ambassador taxicabs can be on the road up to a
maximum of 12 hours per day. When Ambassador taxicabs are not being driven by
their owners, no one else can drive them.
73. A Standard licence owner can be an “absentee” owner by having an agent, broker,
custodian or corporation maintain the requirements of the licence. This is not
23
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 24/34
possible for Ambassador licence owners. Instead, Ambassador licence owners are
required to drive at least 36 hours per week.
74. The Standard licence is transferable and can be sold on the open market. Between
1993 and 1998, the market value of Standard licences increased approximately
$30,000 from $50,000 to $80,000. After the change in by-law in 1998 that prohibited
further issuances of Standard licences, the market value increased to approximately
$175,000 in 2010. In contrast, Ambassador licences have no underlying market value.
When an Ambasssador licence owner retires or dies, the licence is turned in to the
City.
75. The Task Force Report of 1998 shows that the City was aware of many problems
associated with the inferior qualities of the Ambassador class of licence and had plans
to mitigate the gap between licence owners of each class. However, many important
recommendations that would have improved the disadvantaged position of
Ambassador taxicab licence owners were not implemented.
76. The by-laws, policies and practices of the City have created a two-tier licensing
system that applies more restrictive and burdensome terms and conditions on
Ambassador licence owners.
24
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 25/34
77. The proportion of Ambassador licences owned by racialized people in 2010 is
significantly greater than the proportion of Standard licences owned by racialized
people in either 1998 or 2010.
78. The higher proportion of racialized drivers in the Ambassador licence category shows
that the two-tier licensing system has made a distinction between racialized and non-
racialized people. The restrictive conditions and additional burdens faced by
Ambassador taxicab owners disproportionately impact racialized people.
79. Moreover, this distinction has added to the stigma experienced by racialized people.
In the taxi industry, Ambassador drivers are derogatorily referred to as “permit
holders” rather than owners.
80. The two-tier system effectively deprives racialized people of the opportunity to fully
participate in the taxi industry and compete on an equal basis with non-racialized
people.
81. The focus of human rights legislation is the achievement of substantive equality and
the claimant’s initial burden is met by showing a disadvantage (or adverse treatment)
based on a protected ground:
In the human rights context, in most instances, it will be evident that a prima faciecase of discrimination has been established based solely on the claimant’sevidence showing a distinction based on a prohibited ground that creates adisadvantage (in the sense of withholding a benefit available to others or imposinga burden not imposed on others). An inference of stereotyping or of perpetuatingdisadvantage or prejudice will generally arise based on that evidence alone.
25
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 26/34
Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 at para. 39.
82. Discrimination in breach of human rights legislation has been found where a factor or
system of practices, rules and attitudes has disproportionately affected members of a
protected group. It was held that CNR had violated the Canadian Human Rights Act
by depriving equal employment opportunities to women, based on evidence showing
that the proportion of female blue collar workers at CN (0.7%) was less than the
proportion of female blue collar workers in Canada generally (13%).
C.N.R. v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1114 at para. 10.
83. The use of rent/income ratios to deny rental housing to prospective tenants was found
to be constructive discrimination under the Code because it disproportionately
excluded protected groups. The elements of a prima facie case of constructive
discrimination pursuant to Section 11 of the Human Rights Code were held to be:
(a) Existence of the Factor….that the use of such a factor is a “requirement,qualification or factor” as those words appear in Section 11 of the Code.
(b) Effect of the Factor – that using the factor results in the “exclusion, restrictionor preference of a group of persons who are identified by a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
(c) Membership in the Protected Group – that the complainant…is a member of the group (or groups if applicable) referred to in clause (b) above.
Kearney v. Bramalea Ltd., [1998] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 21, at para. 93
26
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 27/34
84. In the present case, the factor is the Respondent’s creation of the two-tier system of
taxicab licences, the effect of the factor is that it results in the disproportionate
exclusion and restriction of racialized taxi drivers from the benefits of the ownership
of Standard licences, and the Complainant is a Black man who is a member of a
protected group and who has been so excluded.
85. To establish discrimination in a case where the Claimant makes a connection between
their identity and a prohibited ground and where the subject matter of the claim is
connected to the underlying purpose of the Code, it will be sufficient for the Claimant
to prove that they have been adversely affected on the basis of a prohibited ground by
an action of the Respondent.
Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 at para. 45.
86. In the present case, the Complainant is a racialized person who has been adversely
affected by being given an inferior licence as a result of the Respondent’s creation of
a two-tier taxicab licensing system that disproportionately disadvantages racialized
owners.
C) What are the appropriate remedies?
87. Upon a finding by the Tribunal that the Respondent has breached the Human Rights
Code, the Complainant seeks the following orders:
27
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 28/34
a) An order that, within one year from the date of the order, the Respondent
be required to provide equal benefits to all taxicab licence owners by
eliminating the differences between Standard and Ambassador licences.
b) An order awarding compensation in the amount of $160,000 for his
financial loss arising from the fact that he could not rent his taxicab to
shift drivers for the eight year period of his holding an Ambassador
licence.
c) An order awarding compensation in the amount of $50,000 for the injury
to his dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the Respondent’s
differential treatment of Standard licencees and Ambassador licencees
88. Section 45.2 of the Code gives this Tribunal wide discretion to make orders directing
parties to do anything that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is required to promote
compliance with the Code in respect of the complaint and in respect of future
practices.
Eliminating the differences between Standard and Ambassador licences.
89. When an act that is found to be in breach of the Code is prescribed by legislation,
Section 47(2) of the Code provides the following:
Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize theconduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless theAct or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act.
90. The impugned City by-law does not provide that it applies despite the Code.
28
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 29/34
91. Although the Tribunal cannot go so far as to strike down or invalidate legislation, this
does not mean that the Tribunal cannot make orders affecting the application of
legislation that is found to be in breach of the Code. If this were the case, Section
47(2) of the Code, which itself is an enactment of the Legislative Assembly of
Ontario, would be rendered meaningless.
92. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to order that an impugned provision be treated as
invalid for the purposes of the matter before the Tribunal. As was held with respect
to the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to a matter before
a different administrative tribunal,
… a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy which is available to theBoard. Instead, the Board simply treats any impugned provision as invalid for the purposes of the matter before it.
Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5 at para17.
93. This issue was dealt with by the Human Rights Tribunal in a case in which it stated
that it would treat impugned provisions of the Coronor’s Act as invalid if it found that
such provisions were inconsistent with the Code. The Tribunal stated as follows:
What it can do, if it finds the legislation to be discriminatory, is to treat thechallenged provision as invalid for the purposes of the issue before it. This is thesame procedure that would be followed if the Tribunal concluded that a legislative provision before it was inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Specifically, it treats the challenged provision as invalid.
Braithwaite v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2005 HRTO 31 (CanLII) at para. 30.
29
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 30/34
94. This approach has been followed by this Tribunal in some recent cases.
Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 at para. 128 and Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 360at para. 172.
95. Until the City treats all taxicab licence owners equally, racialized persons will
continue to suffer from the economic disadvantage and social stigma that arise from
the distinctions created by the two-tier taxicab licensing system.
Compensation for financial loss.
96. Section 45.2(1) of the Code authorizes the Tribunal to order that a party who
infringed a right must make restitution to a party whose right was infringed.
97. If the Respondent had issued Mr. Addai a taxicab licence that was not inferior to the
Standard licences, Mr. Addai would have been able to drive his taxicab full-time and
also to generate additional income by renting his licence to shift drivers for periods
when he was not driving himself. There is evidence that shift drivers paid $400 to
$450 dollars per week in 1989 for the use of a Standard licence. Thus a very
conservative estimate of Mr. Addai’s direct financial loss is $160,000, which is
obtained by assuming lost income of $400 a week for 50 weeks per year (yielding
$20,000 per year) for the 8 years (thus totaling $160,000) during which Mr. Addai
held an Ambassador licence.
30
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 31/34
98. The Complainant is not required to prove the loss with exact precision in order to
obtain damages. The Tribunal is required to do the best it can with the evidence.
Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 at
para. 118.
Compensation for injury to dignity.
99. Pursuant to Section 45.2(1)1 of the Code, a party who infringes a right may be
ordered to pay compensation for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.
100. It has been held that compensation for injury to dignity is not a suitable remedy
for infringement of rights caused by legislation. Thus the Complainant is not entitled
to such compensation as a result of the two-tier system of taxicab licences.
Hendershott v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2011 HRTO 482 at paras. 107 to 116.
101. However, the Complainant does submit that compensation for injury to dignity,
feelings and self-respect is an appropriate remedy for the Respondent’s differential
treatment of Ambassador owners. There is clear and convincing evidence that the
Respondent’s administration and enforcement of the by-laws gives benefits to
Standard owners, sometimes at the direct expense of Ambassador licence owners. In
particular, the requirement that WheelTrans services be provided by owner-driven
taxicabs would clearly benefit Ambassador owners. However, the evidence before the
Tribunal indicates that no action has been taken to stop Standard owners from
violating that requirement in the two and a half years that the Respondent has been
31
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 32/34
aware of the violations. It is also clear that the Respondent does not enforce its own
by-laws with respect to the leasing of Standard of licences.
102. There is evidence of the Respondent’s failure to keep a number of promises and
commitments that were made to Ambassador owners, including the arrangement of a
benefits plan and an annual review of the taxi industry. It is submitted that the failures
to keep those promises have contributed to the injury to the dignity, feelings and self-
respect of the Complainant and other Ambassador owners.
103. Ambassador owners are derogatorily referred to as mere “permit holders” in the
taxi industry. It is submitted that the Respondent’s treatment of Ambassador owners
has contributed to the context that promotes such derogatory views.
104. It is therefore submitted that the Respondent’s actions other than the creation of
the two-tier system itself did injure the dignity, feelings and self-respect of the
Complainant and he therefore deserves monetary compensation for that injury.
Part IV Orders Requested
105. The Complainant respectfully requests the following orders:
32
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 33/34
a) An order that, within one year from the date of the order, the Respondent
be required to provide equal benefits to all taxicab licence owners by
eliminating the differences between Standard and Ambassador licences;
b) An order awarding compensation in the amount of $160,000 for his
financial loss arising from the fact that he could not rent his taxicab to
shift drivers for the eight year period of his holding an Ambassador
licence;
c) An order awarding compensation in the amount of $50,000 for the injury
to his dignity, feelings and self-respect caused by the Respondent’s
differential treatment of Standard licencees and Ambassador licencees;
d) Pre- and post-judgment interest on the amounts awarded pursuant to sub-
paragraphs b) and c) above; and
e) Such further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Dated at Toronto this 6th day of July, 2011.
Roach Schwartz & Associates688 St. Clair Avenue WestToronto, ON M6C 1B1
Peter Rosenthal (LSUC #33044O)
Reni Chang (LSUC #59476F)
Tel: (416) 657-1465Fax: (416) 657-1511
Solicitors for the Complainant
33
8/4/2019 Submissions July 7
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/submissions-july-7 34/34