DRIVE A2B November 2017

WINNIPEG, CANADA
Committee hearings began at the
Manitoba legislature for Bill 30, which
would give Winnipeg a mandate
to create bylaws allowing Uber to
operate in the city while dissolving the
taxicab board.
More than 160 people were
scheduled to speak to the bill, ranging
from private citizens to labour
representatives to representatives
of the ride-sharing company from
Toronto.
Uber representatives presented a
petition of support with more than
11,000 signatures, saying that shows
a lot of people in Winnipeg are in
support of the idea.
“We operate in cities across Canada,”
said Chris Shafer of Uber. “In fact,
Winnipeg has the advantage of
learning from what other cities have
done in terms of regulating the ridesharing
industry.”
But not everyone backs the
Conservative-sponsored bill, and
NDP Leader Wab Kinew recently
stood with cab owners on the
steps of the legislature.
He said cab owners should
be compensated once Uber is
allowed in the province, and
wants provisions in the legislation
making sure ride-sharing
companies follow the same rules
and regulations as taxis.
“This is a law that simply, at the
stroke of a pen, eliminates an
industry,” said Scott McFadyen
of the Winnipeg Community Taxi
Coalition.
He said the taxi industry is simply
superior to ride-sharing: “Taxi
drivers require a shield, a camera,
extensive training, criminal
background check, child abuse
registry, vehicle inspections.”
NEW YORK, USA
A group of plaintiffs, which also
include taxicab medallion holders,
are challenging a district judge’s
March ruling that New York medallion
holders are not subject to disparate
treatment because hailing a cab in the
street is different from summoning a
car through a computer application.
U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan of
the Southern District of New York said
that taxis effectively, have a “collective,
government-sanctioned monopoly
over one particular form of hailing”
and that courts around the country
have found that monopoly justifies
subjecting the industry to a different
set of regulations than ride-sharing
services.
The city’s Taxi & Limousine
Commission gives cabs the exclusive
right to accept passengers by street
hails while ride-sharing companies are
Need
LEGAL
assistance?
AMS
LAW
Serving the Taxi Industry
for over 30 years
considered for-hire vehicles that take
passengers only by prearrangement.
The Plaintiffs are arguing that a wouldbe
passenger using their smartphone
to hail an Uber is effectively the same
as hailing a yellow cab.
Cabs are also required to comply with
a raft of regulations promulgated by
the commission that ride-sharing
companies are not, such as setting
fare rates and maintaining specific
vehicle attributes.
The value of a New York taxi
medallion has plummeted from more
than $1 million just a few years ago to
about $130,000 today.
Apparently it is a given that the
difference between prearranging a ride
and hailing a car has traditionally been
the “concept of time.”
But the city’s Law Department said the
distinction between street hails and
prearrangement is not based on time,
but whether or not consumers are
able to choose their ride service. The
appeal is still ongoing.
• Business
• Commercial
• Conveyancing
• Estate Planning
• Family
• Litigation
• Probate
• Taxation
• Superannuation
Adams Maguire Sier
176 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe
Email: amsr@amslaw.com.au | Phone: 9497 2622
DRIVE A2B magazine · November 2017
39