Application Decision Taxi - New - Passenger Transportation Board
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Application Decision
Taxi – New
Application # 10247-20
Applicant & EasyCab Ltd. Represented by Mitchell H. Gropper, Counsel, Farris
Application LLP.
Summary Trade Name: Heylr
New PDVA (Taxi)
• New Special Authorization: Passenger Directed Vehicle
Authorization (PDVA)
• Originating Area: Surrey, Delta, White Rock, Langley,
Abbotsford, YVR
• Weekend Part Time Taxis: Up to 4 vehicles in the Downtown
Vancouver Entertainment District
• Fleet Maximum: 213 taxis (169 conventional and 44 accessible) of
which 7 are contingent on 16 vehicles being authorized by the
Vancouver Airport Authority to pick up at YVR
• Crew Rail Transportation: Authorization to provide service under
contract for Canada Post and CN Rail
• Hospital Service: Authorization for accessible service to hospitals
in New Westminster and Langley
• Vehicle Capacity: 2-7 passengers plus driver
• Operating Requirement: The following 3 companies must cease
operating: Aldergrove-Langley Taxi, Guildford Cab and Newton
Whalley Hi-Way Taxi.
• Rates: Board Rule Respecting Metro Vancouver Taxicab Rates
Applicant Current Passenger Transportation Licence: None.
Information Principals:
Mandeep S. BASRA
Amrik S. BASSI
Gurman BUTTAR
Hardip JOHAL
Balwinder MAHIL
Arvinder SINGH
Office: 101 – 18418 53rd Avenue, Surrey, BC V3A 8S7.
Publication of August 26, 2020
Application
Page 1Submitters & • White Rock South Surrey Taxi (dba: Pacific Cabs),
Submissions Represented by William A. McLachlan, Counsel, McLachlan
Brown Anderson
• Abbotsford Taxi Ltd., Represented by William A. McLachlan,
Counsel, McLachlan Brown Anderson
• Mission Taxi Ltd. Represented by William A. McLachlan,
Counsel, McLachlan Brown Anderson
• Matsqui Taxi Ltd. Represented by William A. McLachlan,
Counsel, McLachlan Brown Anderson
• Shareholders of Guildford Cab (1993) Ltd.: Baljinder Singh
Sangha, Sukhwinder Singh Saroya & Jaswinder Singh Chandi
(joint submission). Represented by Gurpreet Badh, Counsel,
Badh & Associates
• Vancouver Taxi Association
• Central Valley Taxi. Represented by Harley J. Harris, Counsel,
Owen Bird Law Corporation
• BC Taxi Association
• Shareholders of Newton Whalley Hi-Way Taxi Ltd: Davinder
Kainth, Kulwinder Singh Dhillon, Narinder Singh Parmar,
and Jatinder Singh Bhullar (joint submission).
• Shobby Vanayak
• Royal City Taxi Ltd.
• Surdell Kennedy Taxi Ltd. Represented by William A.
McLachlan, Counsel, McLachlan Brown Anderson
• Delta Sunshine Taxi (1972) Ltd. Represented by William A.
McLachlan, Counsel, McLachlan Brown Anderson
• Tsawwassen Taxi Ltd. Represented by William A. McLachlan,
Counsel, McLachlan Brown Anderson
Board Decision The application is refused.
Decision Date July 6, 2021
Panel Chair Carmela Allevato
I. Introduction
The Passenger Transportation Act (the Act) regulates the licensing and operation of
commercial passenger transportation vehicles and services in BC. Under the Act, the
Passenger Transportation Board (Board) makes licensing decisions on applications
relating to taxis, limousines and other small shuttle and tour vehicles. The operation of
these vehicles requires a “passenger directed vehicle authorization.”
EasyCab Ltd. Page 2 Passenger Transportation BoardThe Board has the authority to consider and approve applications for new licences as well
as applications from existing licensees to change terms and conditions of their licences
(including the addition of vehicles to their fleet), change rates to be charged for a service
and request Temporary Operating Permits (TOPs). Since September 2019, the Board’s
mandate has included licensing decisions relating to Transportation Network Services,
also known as ride-hailing services.
II. Jurisdiction
This application is made under the Passenger Transportation Act (the Act). As required
by section 26(1) of the Act, the Registrar of Passenger Transportation forwarded the
application to the Board. Section 26(2) of the Act requires the Board to publish the fact
and nature of the application, and section 27(3) requires it to consider applications and
any written submissions it receives as result of publication. Section 27(5) states that
people who make submissions are not entitled to disclosure of further information unless
the Board orders otherwise.
Section 28(1) governs the Board’s consideration of applications as follows:
28(1) The board may approve, in whole or in part, an application forwarded to it
under section 26(1) after considering whether:
(a) there is a public need for the service the applicant proposes to provide
under any special authorization,
(b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide that service and is
capable of providing that service, and
(c) the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in
the passenger transportation business in British Columbia.
Section 28(2) states that the Board must, if it approves an application, specify the special
authorization that should be included in the licence, if issued by the Registrar.
Section 28(3) states that the Board may establish terms and conditions that apply to a
special authorization included in a licence.
Section 7(1)(f) of the Act authorizes the Board to approve or set, for the purpose of
establishing just and uniform charges, rates to be charged by a taxi operator.
EasyCab Ltd. Page 3 Passenger Transportation BoardIII. Application
(1) Applicant
The applicant, EasyCab Ltd., trade name: Heylr, (“EasyCab”), was incorporated in British
Columbia on March 21, 2019. The applicant’s office is located in Surrey, BC. The applicant
is owned by the owners of three taxi companies: Aldergrove-Langley Taxi Ltd.
(“Aldergrove-Langley”); Guildford Cab (1993) Ltd. (“Guildford Cab”); and, Newton
Whalley Hi-Way Taxi Ltd. (“Newton Whalley”) (the “Parent Companies”).
Each of the Parent Companies has a passenger transportation licence with a Special
Authorization: Passenger Directed Vehicle Authorization. Fleet size and operating areas
are set out in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: Fleet Size and Originating Areas of Parent Companies
Company Max. Originating Originating Originating Originating Originating Contract
& PT Fleet area: area: area: area: area: clause for
Licence # Size & Delta Surrey White Rock Langley (City YVR** Canada Post
WATs* and (workers or
Township) & rail crew
Abbotsford transport)
Aldergrove- 33 (5 N/A N/A √ N/A
Langley WATs) Canada Post
70614 workers in
Langley
Guildford 74 (17 √ N/A N/A √
Cab WATs) Portion of Canada Post
#70431 Delta workers in
bounded on Surrey and
south, east portion of
and west by Delta
highway 99 bounded on
south, east
and west by
highway 99
Newton 106 (22 √ √ √ Only to √
Whalley WATs) hospitals and Canada Post
#70774 * for workers in
passengers Surrey, Delta,
needing a White Rock
wheelchair
accessible Rail Crews –
taxi*** portions of
the GVRD
* WATs = Wheelchair Accessible Taxis
EasyCab Ltd. Page 4 Passenger Transportation Board** The number of vehicles that may serve YVR is limited by licensing agreements that the companies
negotiate with the airport authority. Newton Whalley must be licensed by the airport authority for at least
17 vehicles to maintain its maximum fleet size on its passenger transportation licence.
*** Also allows for transportation to hospitals in New Westminster
Both Guildford Cab and Newton Whalley can operate two peak period taxis in the
Downtown Vancouver Entertainment Districts on Friday and Saturday nights. Nothing in
this application would change that.
History of EasyCab
EasyCab was incorporated by Johal Hardep, the president of Aldergrove-Langley Taxi Ltd.
for the purpose of combining the dispatch services of the taxi companies operating south
of the Fraser River. Originally the following companies indicated an interest:
o Newton Whalley Hi Way Taxi Ltd.
o Guildford Cabs (1993) Ltd.
o Aldergrove-Langley Taxi Ltd.
o Surdell Kennedy Taxi Ltd.
o Delta Sunshine Taxi (1972) Ltd.
o Tsawwassen Taxi Ltd.
o White Rock South Surrey Taxi Ltd.
Ultimately, only the Parent Companies entered into an agreement for shared dispatch
services. The plan was that, at some point, the companies would merge their taxi licences
and combine dispatch services in order to “present a single name and dispatch system to
customers in the Dispatch Area”. The Dispatch Area was defined as areas of: “Delta,
Surrey, White Rock, Langley, Abbotsford and Aldergrove, British Columbia and such other
areas to which such format, system and plan may in the future be expanded.”
In its response submission, dated October 13, 2020, EasyCab advised the Board that if the
Board approves the application, the Parent Companies will hold meetings of their
respective shareholders to consider approval of a special resolution approving the transfer
of the rights to the taxi licences to EasyCab and that only if and when these special
resolutions are adopted will the existing taxi licences be surrendered to the Passenger
Transportation Branch and EasyCab will be entitled to start vehicle operations.
(2) Applicant’s Request & Explanation
The applicant seeks a licence to operate 213 taxis, being the total number of taxis
approved for the Parent Companies in an operating area that consolidates the operating
areas for each of the Parent Companies.
EasyCab Ltd. Page 5 Passenger Transportation BoardThe applicant advises that this is not a merger of the taxi companies. Rather it is an
application for a new Special Authorization and that, once approved, the Parent
Companies will surrender their licences.
The applicant provided the following public explanation that was published in the
Application Summary:
The purpose of the formation of EasyCab Ltd is to effect a merger of the taxi dispatch
services and originating areas of the following licensees:
• Aldergrove-Langley Taxi Ltd.: PT Licence 70614 (33 taxis approved)
• Guildford Cab (1993) Ltd.: PT Licence 70431 (74 taxis approved)
• Newton Whalley Hi Way Taxi Ltd.: PT Licence 70974 (106 taxis approved)
EasyCab Ltd is applying for a licence so that the originating area for the licence held by the
taxi companies will encompass a uniform geographic area covered by the three collectively.
This will increase availability of transportation services and ensure no passenger is
neglected. Relaxing the geographical constraints placed on the above-merging taxi
companies promote greater efficiency and encourage healthy competition within the taxi
industry as well as with other ride hailing businesses.
(3) Overview of Applicant Materials
The applicant submitted application forms and other materials pursuant to Board
application requirements. The applicant’s materials include the following:
• A business plan and financial statements with details about the planned operation.
• Letters of support from community leaders such the Surrey Board of Trade and the
Surrey City Council.
• A Taxi Service Survey conducted by the Mustel Group, market research company
which indicates support for the application.
• Questionnaire forms with some of the same questions as those in the market
research survey filled out by individuals who provided their contact information.
• Résumés of the management team detailing their experience and expertise in the
field.
• A letter, dated October 13, 2020, responding to the opposing submitters and
referencing a number of additional documents and information.
• Correspondence regarding the safety rating of one of the Parent Companies.
Submissions
There were 19 submitters all of whom opposed the application. These include:
A. 7 shareholders from 2 of the Parent Companies
EasyCab Ltd. Page 6 Passenger Transportation BoardB. 1 private individual
C. 9 taxi companies
D. 2 taxi associations
A. Parent Companies Shareholders
Newton Whalley shareholders
Four shareholders opposed the application based on allegations of non-compliance with
the Business Corporations Act [SBC 2002] Chapter 57 and concerns that there would be
increased competition for dispatch and for trips.
Guildford Cab shareholders
Three shareholders opposed the application based on allegations of non-compliance with
the Business Corporations Act, pointing to pending litigation, and arguing that the
application does not promote sound economic conditions in the taxi industry.
B. Individual Submitter
One individual filed a submission opposing the application on the basis that there was no
public need to justify the addition of taxis in all of the operating areas and that granting
the application would have a negative impact on sound economic conditions in the
passenger transportation business. They also alleged that one of the Parent Companies
had failed to pay membership dues to its association and there were lawsuits pending.
C. Taxi Companies Submitters
Royal City Taxi Ltd.
Royal City Taxi Ltd. (“Royal City”) advised the Board that it survives by providing rail
crew transportation for CN and that it also services and depends on the business at Royal
Columbia Hospital in New Westminster. Guildford Cab, with a fleet of 74 taxis, also has a
contract with CN and Newton Whalley, with a fleet of 106 taxis, also has a contract with
the Royal Columbian Hospital to provide accessible taxi service.
Royal City Taxi argued that combining the three licences would not promote sound
economic conditions in the taxi industry. It proposed that if the application is approved
the number of taxis providing CN rail crew transportation should remain at their current
level and the number of taxis providing accessible service to Royal Columbian Hospital
should remain at 106.
EasyCab Ltd. Page 7 Passenger Transportation BoardRoyal City argued that the introduction of ride-hailing has had a significant negative impact on the taxi industry and that the industry is going through extreme hardship due to COVID-19. White-Rock South Surrey Taxi Ltd. (dba “Pacific Cabs”) and, Abbotsford Ltd., Mission Taxi Ltd. and Matsqui Taxi Ltd. (referred to as the “Abbotsford Group”) These three taxi companies requested that, although their submissions were contained in one document, they be considered as individual opposing submissions. The Panel will address their submissions jointly but notes their individual opposition. The originating areas in the application overlap with the originating areas served by these submitters. They propose that if the Board approves the application, the Board should not consolidate originating areas and it should maintain the current number of taxis able to operate in each originating area. The submitters argued that the true nature of the application is to secure a much broader originating area authority than was had by any of the three individual companies and that this is not appropriate under the Board’s process. They stated that there is no public need demonstrated for the addition of taxis to the existing originating areas and that the Board should approach this case in the same manner that the Board did in Decision 933-05. In that case, the Board refused to consolidate the originating areas of three applicants to include a portion of the City of Burnaby where only one of the three was already licensed to operate. The Board declined that application on the basis that there was no evidence of public need for the addition of taxis to that specific area. These submitters argue that, effectively, with this application, the Parent Company, Aldergrove-Langley, is expanding its originating area to include all of the originating areas of Newton Whalley and Guildford Cabs, and that Newton Whalley and Guildford Cabs would put extensive numbers of their taxis into originating areas that they do not presently have. The submitters provided information to show that their businesses have suffered a significant drop in revenue because of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic and that they are operating at less than their full fleets. They argue that there has not been an opportunity to gauge the effect that the introduction of ride-hailing has had on the taxi industry, as the pandemic has “driven business to the ground”. The Board should not make any changes at this time. EasyCab Ltd. Page 8 Passenger Transportation Board
They also questioned the financial fitness of one of the Parent Companies due to pending litigation related to its failure to pay dues and its share of certain fees to the B.C. Taxi Association. The submitters ask the Board to dismiss the application or, in the alternative, set the matter down for a public hearing. If the Board approves the application, they urge the Board to preserve the originating areas for the Parent Companies, with the current taxi numbers approved for each area. Delta Sunshine Ltd. and Tsawwassen Taxi Ltd. The originating areas of these submitters overlap with the originating area sought in the application. They oppose the application for reasons similar to those of Pacific Cabs and the Abbotsford Group above. They too provided information that indicates they have suffered a significant reduction in business during the COVID-19 pandemic. The submitters also ask the Board to dismiss the application or, in the alternative, set the matter down for a public hearing. If the Board approves the application, they urge the Board to preserve the originating areas for the Parent Companies, with the current taxi numbers approved for each area. Surdell-Kennedy Taxi Ltd. Surdell-Kennedy Taxi Ltd.’s originating area overlaps with the originating areas sought in the application. It opposed the application on the same basis as Pacific Cabs, the Abbotsford Group, Delta Sunshine Ltd., and Tsawwassen Taxi Ltd. and sought the same remedies. Central Valley Taxi Ltd. Central Valley Tax Ltd. (“Central Valley”) has an originating area that overlaps with the areas sought by the application and it opposes the application. Central Valley submitted that the application seeks to remove the jurisdiction and other restrictions for the three existing taxi companies and permit a vast fleet of 213 taxis to originate service throughout the Fraser Valley and dominate the taxi transportation industry in the affected areas. It argued that other taxi companies in these areas would face destructive competition and likely be put out of business, something which does not promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation industry in the province. EasyCab Ltd. Page 9 Passenger Transportation Board
Central Valley also pointed to significant negative consequences suffered by the taxi
industry because of the pandemic. It also argued that further structural changes should
not be permitted to taxi industry service providers without a reasonable amount of time,
i.e. 18 to 24 months, to pass from the end of the pandemic in order to properly assess the
effect of ride-hailing on the passenger transportation industry.
According to Central Valley there is no public need for the service for which EasyCab
applied and the addition of a new taxi company with this size of a fleet would be
destructive to the existing taxi companies and would not promote sound economic
conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia.
Central Valley provided trip data supporting its allegation of a decline in business during
COVID-19 and asserted that, like other taxi operators, it was not operating its full fleet as
a result.
Central Valley also argued that there are multiple existing taxi companies, limousines,
shuttles, TNS companies, and other services that have capacity to provide sufficient
service in the area. The proposed new taxi company would not serve new demand but
would simply take pre-existing business from established carriers and would negatively
impact the economic conditions of the passenger transportation business in the area.
Central Valley also questioned whether EasyCab is capable of providing the service and
whether it has sufficient capital to acquire, equip and insure vehicles and operate a
reliable dispatch system, hire and train employees and rent and equip premises suitable
for a 213 vehicle taxi fleet.
Central Valley asked the Board to refuse the application or, in the alternative, to refer it to
public hearing.
D. Taxi Associations
The Vancouver Taxi Association (“VTA”)
The VTA represents taxi companies that provide service to some of the originating areas
sought in the application. It opposes the application on the basis that approving it would
not promote sound economic conditions of the passenger transportation business in the
province. The VTA argued that ride-hailing and the pandemic have had a negative impact
on the taxi industry. It requested that the application be dismissed; however, if it were
approved, the Board should set limitations on the licence so that the number of taxis to
provide rail crew transportation and accessible service to New Westminster hospitals
remains at the current level and is not increased to 213.
EasyCab Ltd. Page 10 Passenger Transportation BoardThe B.C. Taxi Association (“BCTA”) The BCTA opposed the application arguing that there is no evidence of public need for the service and that granting the application would not promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business. The BCTA asks the Board to take into consideration that ride-hailing and COVID-19 have had a negative impact on the taxi industry and now is not the time to add this number of taxis to the operating areas of its members. It also raised concerns that the request for a new Special Authorization is a way for the three taxi companies to circumvent the system and that the application is simply an expansion of the originating area. The BCTA raised concerns regarding the financial fitness of one of the Parent Companies with whom it is engaged in litigation relating to unpaid dues and fees. Response of the Applicant In its response letter, the applicant replied to the common themes in the submissions and addressed some of the specific opposing arguments. EasyCab pointed out that its application is made in the context of a massive shift in the passenger transportation industry brought about by the introduction of ride-hailing [Transportation Network Services (“TNS”)]. It explained that its proposal, a sophisticated dispatch system with an advanced app and a broader originating area, is a response to the well-reported public demand for improved taxi services. The applicant pointed to indicators of support for its application including letters from community and business leaders and the positive results of a market research survey conducted by the Mustel Group. It urged the Board not to consider existing trip demand alone as reflective of actual demand, but to take into account the rise in taxi service complaints as an indicator of a demand for the type of service it was proposing. It pointed to a media story that indicated an increase in taxi passenger complaints from 2015 to 2018. EasyCab provided a detailed description of its proposed dispatch app and argued that this, together with the proposed originating area changes, would improve fleet utilization and reduce “deadheading” (where a taxi delivering passengers outside of its originating area must return to the originating area in order to pickup a new fare). In response to the arguments that existing originating areas would be flooded with the consolidated fleet of 213 vehicles, EasyCab explained that it was illogical to suggest that the entire fleet would be operating in each of the submitters’ originating areas. EasyCab Ltd. Page 11 Passenger Transportation Board
It noted that it planned on positioning its fleet on a per capita basis to start and then adjust it over time to meet the ongoing and shifting demand based on data received and collected through its app. Its intention was to use its dispatch app to limit the number of taxis servicing the Aldergrove-Langley area, and presumably other areas, to balance supply and demand. It explained that it would be economically counterproductive for EasyCab to flood that area with the licensed taxis while leaving other areas under- serviced. As to arguments based on the impact of COVID-19, EasyCab responded that its application should not be delayed simply because of a temporary aberration and that in any event EasyCab is affected in the same manner as the other taxi companies and, therefore, approval of the application will not exacerbate the current impact on the taxi industry. As to the suggestion that the application should be delayed until the assessment of the impact of ride-hailing on the taxi industry, EasyCab responded that the goal of its application is to compete both with other taxis as well as ride-hailing services and this is not an adequate excuse to delay its application. In response to the argument that the Board should apply the reasoning in decisions 933- 05 et al, EasyCab distinguished those decisions on the basis that they were made prior to the introduction of ride-hailing. The various studies and reports produced in advance of the statutory amendments that allowed ride-hailing all point to the existence of an unmet need for improved taxi services. EasyCab referred to the Board’s decision granting a TNS licence to Yellow Cab Company Ltd., a Vancouver-based company, and argued that it would not be reasonable for the Board to approve a vastly larger area for Yellow Cab to operate in under their TNS licence and not allow the present application to move forward. In response to fitness concerns, EasyCab stated that its directors and managers are all persons whom the Board considers to be fit and proper; that the allegations regarding the formation of EasyCab are unsubstantiated and that, in any event, none of the allegations suggest that any of the companies would be incapable of, or unfit for, running a taxi service. EasyCab argued that granting the application would improve the overall economic viability and competitiveness of the industry because its proposal will offer significantly improved service to customers. EasyCab Ltd. Page 12 Passenger Transportation Board
While the introduction of better services to the public through healthy competition may
cause existing taxi companies that do not provide equivalent services to lose market
share, EasyCab said this is not a sufficient reason to block its application. Further, the
Board’s mandate is not to protect existing companies, but to promote sound economic
conditions, including promoting competition that delivers innovative customer-focused
taxi services.
EasyCab noted that a common dispatch service was recommended in a 1999 taxi study
(“the Lanyon Report”) commissioned by the Provincial Government and that there has
not been any meaningful reform in that area since then. It pointed to studies that have
critiqued the Board’s “slavish adherence” to the originating area boundaries for taxis. It
argued that its application is a small step forward in that it proposes to merge the
dispatch business of several companies in order to improve customer service through new
technology. This promotes sound economic condition.
As to the concerns raised in the shareholders’ submissions, EasyCab responded that these
issues regarding the internal governance of the Parent Companies are not matters to be
adjudicated or considered by the Board in its determination. It provided copies of the
directors’ resolutions for each Parent Company and stated that pending Board approval of
the application there will be meetings of the shareholders to approve the operation of
EasyCab and the withdrawal of current taxi licences.
(4) Procedural Matters
Section 17 of the Act allows the Board to conduct written, electronic or oral hearings, or
any combination as the Board, in its sole discretion, considers appropriate. This
application is being conducted by way of a written hearing.
IV. Analysis and Findings
Section 28(1) of the Act sets out the factors the Board must consider with respect to this
application.
(1) Is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide its proposed service, and is
the applicant capable of providing the service?
The Board looks at this question in two parts:
(a) is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide the proposed service; and,
(b) is the applicant capable of providing the service?
EasyCab Ltd. Page 13 Passenger Transportation BoardFirst, with fit and proper, the Oxford English Dictionary defines fit as including “well adapted or suited to the conditions or circumstances of the case, answering the purpose, proper or appropriate possessing the necessary qualifications, properly qualified, competent, deserving.” Also, the dictionary defines proper as including “suitable for a specified or implicit purpose or requirement; appropriate to the circumstances or conditions; of the requisite standard or type; apt, fitting; correct, right.” When looking at whether an applicant is fit and proper, the Board does so in the context of the passenger transportation industry in British Columbia. This includes the regulatory system that grants businesses a licence which confers on them both the authorization they need to provide their service and an ongoing obligation to operate in accordance with proper standards of conduct. Second, capability is generally understood to mean that an applicant has the ability or qualities necessary to skillfully and effectively meet its obligations and achieve the results it says it will achieve. When looking at capability, the Board reflects on whether the applicant has demonstrated that it has the knowledge and understanding of relevant regulatory requirements and policies that govern passenger transportation providers, and whether it is able to comply with those requirements. It also looks at whether the applicant has the background, skills and knowledge to manage its proposed service, and the financing to operate it. The Board expects an applicant to demonstrate its competence and ability by providing sound and realistic information in its business plan and financial statements that is consistent and compatible with the transportation service it proposes. The Parent Companies of the applicant are well-established taxi companies that the Board has previously found to be fit and proper persons under the Act. The management team is made up of persons with many years of experience in the passenger transportation business. The NSC ratings of the applicant and the Parent Companies are acceptable to the Board. There is nothing in the disclosures of unlawful activity and bankruptcy forms, signed by EasyCab principals, that cause the Board any concerns. The applicant signed the required declaration form. On the issue of capability, some of the submitters have raised concerns about the financial fitness of one of the Parent Companies in relation to pending litigation. Others have alleged that EasyCab failed to comply with the Business Corporations Act and noted other procedural issues relating to the establishment of EasyCab. EasyCab has responded by saying that the allegations are unsubstantiated and that none of these allegations show that they are not capable of running a taxi company. EasyCab Ltd. Page 14 Passenger Transportation Board
With respect to the pending litigation, this is a civil matter between the BCTA and the Parent Company and it is not for this Panel to decide the merits of that dispute. In any event, the Board has not been provided with details of that dispute and, without further information, the Panel agrees with EasyCab that the allegations, as they pertain to applicant fitness, are unsubstantiated and gives them no weight. In response to the issues raised by the shareholder submitters, EasyCab denied that it has not complied with the applicable legislation. It explains that this is not a merger of the Parent Companies and that the individual companies would continue to exist with their own assets and liabilities except their taxi licences. EasyCab also stated that if the Board approves this application, the Parent Companies will hold shareholders meetings to seek approval for the proposal and to withdraw their respective licences. The Panel agrees that it is not for the Board to determine whether the applicant’s owners, i.e. the Parent Companies, have complied with the Business Corporation Act when they established EasyCab. However, the Panel is concerned that the Board is being asked to approve an application whose support may be uncertain among its owners. The application is made by an entity made up of three taxi companies. While the directors of each of the companies have made the application, the Board has been advised that EasyCab may not operate unless all of the shareholders have approved the proposal. Since the application is refused, it is not necessary for the Board to address this issue squarely other than to say that it would be preferable not to have this uncertainty. In the Panel’s view, the applicant’s business plan and financial information all indicate that EasyCab has put a significant amount of effort and resources into its proposal and that it does have the financial and organizational capability to provide the service applied for, notwithstanding the concern noted in the previous paragraph. Based on the information and evidence above, the Panel finds that EasyCab Ltd. is a fit and proper entity to provide the proposed service, and that it has demonstrated it is capable of providing the service. (2) Is there is a public need for the service the applicant proposes to provide? An applicant is required to demonstrate public need by showing that there are people who would use the proposed service. Applicants should provide clear information about the service it proposes, and they should provide supporting evidence that is factual and objective. They should not rely on general claims and their own opinion. The Board reviews applications and considers the extent and type of need that has been demonstrated for the proposed service. EasyCab Ltd. Page 15 Passenger Transportation Board
The Applicant seeks an operating area that is comprised of all the areas serviced by the
licences of the Parent Companies. The nature of this application essentially transfers and
combines the licences of each of the Parent Companies into one. The result is that each of
the originating areas would now have up to 213 taxis, rather than the current 74, 106, or 33
approved under each of the Parent Companies’ current licence. For example, the 33 taxis
approved under Aldergrove-Langley’s licence would be able to work in Surrey and White
Rock, and the 74 taxis approved under the Guildford Cab’s licence would be able to
operate in Langley. (Please refer to Figure 1 above).
The onus is on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence that there is a public need for
the additional taxis in the expanded operating area which includes the originating areas
described in the existing licences.
The applicant supplied a Taxi Service Report, an online market research survey
undertaken by the Mustel Group, a set of completed survey forms, and letters of support
from Surrey Council and the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and a local Member of
Parliament to establish support.
In this Panel’s view the questions asked in the Taxi Service Report appear designed to
elicit the desired answer. For example, one of the questions is:
Q. In general, would you support or oppose relaxing the geographical constraints
on taxi companies between the municipalities of Surrey and Delta, and Langley
and Abbotsford in order to provide better and faster service to the residents in
these areas?
Unsurprisingly, 92% of the respondents were in support. The Report is of questionable
assistance to the Board.
The Applicant also submitted questionnaires with the same or similar questions as the
online market research survey. The questionnaires are signed by the respondents who
also provided their contact information. However, the Board finds them of little value in
assessing public need.
The Panel is taking into consideration the letters of support from community leaders as
indicators of community support for the applicant’s proposal. However, by themselves
these are not sufficient to establish public need as required by the Board.
The submitters, all but one of whom have originating areas that overlap (at least in part)
with the proposed originating area of EasyCab, argued that there is no unmet public need
for the addition of taxis to their respective originating areas.
EasyCab Ltd. Page 16 Passenger Transportation BoardThey point to the fact that in 2018/19, the Board approved the granting of up to a 15% increase in taxi fleets as part of its Taxi Modernization plan in furtherance to a recommendation in the 2018 Modernizing Taxi Regulation report by Hara & Associates (the “Hara Report’). In response the applicant also refers to the Hara Report, the Lanyon Report, and an SFU master’s thesis by Benn Proctor as support for the general notion that there is an unmet public need for additional and improved taxi service, including more efficient dispatch and for the relaxation of taxi boundaries. EasyCab submits that it is illogical to suggest that its entire fleet would be operating in each of the submitter’s operating area. It would be economically counterproductive for EasyCab to flood an area like Aldergrove-Langley while leaving other areas under- serviced. It also explains that its app allows it to adjust the positioning of its fleet based on demand as revealed through its data. In the Board’s view, while this explains how EasyCab can move its fleet to respond to existing demand, it does not show that there is an unmet public need for the whole fleet to be allowed to operate in areas where only a portion of the fleet is currently operating. There is no explanation that current licensees, including those held by the Parent Company that services an area, are not able to meet the demand for the transportation of passengers in their originating areas. The applicant urged the Board to take into account the rise in passenger complaints from 2015 to 2018 as reported in the media story included in the application. Of the twelve taxi companies with the highest number of complaints, only three of the taxi companies with overlapping originating areas are shown to have an increase from 6 or 7 complaints to 12 or 13 over that period. This is not so significant a number to establish public need. EasyCab points to reports and studies that preceded the introduction of ride-hailing as proof that there is an unmet need for passenger transportation services in British Columbia. Since those reports were first published many taxi companies, including those affected by this application, increased their fleet sizes as part of the Board’s Taxi Modernization plan. Additionally, the Legislature amended the Act to allow the Board jurisdiction to licence TNS (ride-hailing). Since January 2020, the Board has granted 17 TNS licences in Region 1 (generally the Lower Mainland of BC). The Board was also given authority to order that licensees provide ongoing information and data so that the Board may monitor and regulate the industry and make objective evidence-based decisions designed to promote a vibrant passenger transportation industry that serves the needs of British Columbians. EasyCab Ltd. Page 17 Passenger Transportation Board
EasyCab argues that because the Board has granted a TNS licence to Yellow Cab, which
allows it to operate across Region 1, it should also grant the present application. The
Board considers taxis and TNS as two different business models. The Act sets out the
requirements for the granting of a TNS licence and those who have been licensed,
including a number of companies that also have taxi licences, have met the requirements.
The current application is not a TNS application.
The submitters argue that the Board should be guided by its decision on applications 933-
05 and 936-05 (decided on March 13, 2006) while the applicant responds that that
decision was made in 2006 prior to the introduction of ride-hailing and the advancement
of more sophisticated technology.
This Panel agrees that sometimes the passage of time, societal changes, or technological
advancement make the reasoning in prior decisions inapplicable. However, in this case,
the underlying principle is that there must be sufficient evidence of public need for the
proposed service. The requirement to consider public need continues in the Act.
Based on the analysis above, I find that there is not a public need for the proposed
service.
(3) Would approving the application support sound economic conditions in the
passenger transportation business in British Columbia?
In considering sound economic conditions, the Board strives to balance public need for
available, accessible, and reliable commercial passenger transportation services with
overall industry viability and competitiveness. The Board considers the issue from a wide-
ranging perspective, which includes a consideration of harm to other industry
participants. Generally speaking, it is the Board’s view that the overall economic interests
of the transportation business weigh more heavily than the economic and financial
interests of any particular applicant or submitter.
When the Board finds that there is no public need for the proposed service, it will be
unlikely to find that the application would promote sound economic conditions in the
passenger transportation industry. In this case, the market for the service would come
from the applicant’s Parent Companies, which is acceptable; but it would also come from
other taxi companies that operate in the area. These taxi companies are operating at
reduced capacity and are struggling to survive the pandemic and its effect. It would not
contribute to the economic viability and competitiveness of the industry to make these
competitors even more vulnerable.
EasyCab Ltd. Page 18 Passenger Transportation BoardI find that approving the application would not promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in BC. V. Conclusion For the reasons above, this application is refused. EasyCab Ltd. Page 19 Passenger Transportation Board
You can also read
