Operating Taxi Without License: Broad Definition of Meaning of Operating, Among Other Issues

Question: What should I do if I am charged with operating a taxi without a valid license?

Answer:   It is crucial to understand the specifics of the licensing bylaws in your municipality and to build a strong defence based on due diligence efforts to comply with legal requirements.  Denali Paralegal Services can assist you in navigating these complexities, ensuring that your legal rights are protected as you address the charges against you.

Understanding Taxi Licensing Violations

Municipalities regulate the operation of taxis through detailed licensing bylaws.  Operating a taxi without the required license can lead to charges under such bylaws.  Defending such a charge requires an understanding of the legal interpretation of “operating”, the nature of strict liability offences, and the statutory interpretation standards applied by courts.

Meaning of Operate

Municipal bylaws typically define the term “operate” very broadly.  For example, in case of City of Toronto v. Rainal, 2006 ONCJ 335, the definition of “operate” included driving a taxicab as well as “to make a vehicle available to the public for use as a cab”.  This expansive definition means that a person may be found as operating a taxi even without driving it.

In Rainal, the taxicab of the defendant was parked near Union Station in Toronto, with its roof light illuminated, but the driver was away from the vehicle.  The vehicle had clear taxi markings and was situated in an area known for taxi services.  The driver stated that the driver was on a personal break and was inactive in any effort to solicit fares, the Court considered the surrounding indicators and found these were sufficient to consider whether the cab was being made available to the public; however, because the taxi was locked and the driver was standing 120 feet away talking with others, the Court found that the City failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the taxi was being made available for hire at that moment.  This illustrates how contextual details matter and may sway the outcome in borderline situations.

Involves Strict Liability

Municipal bylaw charges such as operating a taxi without a license are usually treated as strict liability offences.  A strict liability offence may occur without proof that the accused intended to commit the offence.  The prosecution needs only to prove that the prohibited act occurred.  In this context, a conviction may follow even without deliberate wrongdoing; however, an accused person may avoid conviction by establishing a defence of due diligence; that is, by showing that all reasonable steps were taken to comply with the bylaw and to prevent the offence.

As explained in Rainal, the accused is unable to rely on a mistaken belief that co-operation was unnecessary simply because the taxi was inactive, meaning out of service.  The Court emphasized that even if the driver was on a break, the surrounding circumstances, such as location, time of day, illuminated roof light, and other indicators, could trigger the inspection authority of municipal officers and the duties under the bylaw as owed by the driver.

Diligence Defence Strategy

Due diligence is the only defence available to a person who is proven to have committed the offence.  To succeed, the defendant must demonstrate that all reasonable precautions were taken to avoid the offence.  For example, if a driver took verifiable steps to suspend taxi operations during a break (e.g., turning off the roof light, moving the vehicle away from taxi stands, or clearly signaling that service was unavailable), this may help to establish due diligence.

In Rainal, the Court found such precautions were absent.  The roof light remained on, the vehicle remained in a high-traffic area for taxis, and the driver failed to co-operate when approached by officers.  These omissions undermined any claim of due diligence.

Requirements Across Municipalities

Municipal licensing requirements are inconsistent.  Each municipality has the authority to create its own regulatory framework, including definitions of key terms, required documentation, display standards for identification, and vehicle markings.  For instance, some municipalities may require visible in-cab photo identification, mandatory trip sheets, or specific parking rules, as seen in the Toronto regulations reviewed in Rainal.

This variability underscores the importance of reviewing the exact provisions of the relevant bylaw in the municipality where the charge occurred.  Compliance in one jurisdiction fails to guarantee compliance elsewhere.

Building a Defence

When facing a charge for operating a taxi without a municipal license, it is essential to approach the defence with a clear understanding of the scope of the bylaw, the evidentiary burdens, and the enforcement authority expectations.  The following strategies may be considered when building a defence:

• To clarify the meaning of operation under the bylaw:
  A key initial step involves reviewing how the term operate is defined in the relevant municipal bylaw.  As explained in Rainal, operation may include driving, and also making a vehicle available to the public for use as a taxi.  Where the driver is away from the vehicle or unengaged in active service, this context may be used to challenge whether a true operation occurred under the bylaw definition;
• To raise reasonable doubt about the circumstances of the alleged offence:
  A strong defence may involve presenting factual inconsistencies or omissions in the evidence of the prosecution.  For example, if the driver was significantly away from the vehicle, the vehicle was locked and unoccupied, or roof lights were off, such facts may diminish the inference that the vehicle was available to the public.  In Rainal, the absence of direct evidence of solicitation, combined with distance from the cab and the locked doors, all contributed to the dismissal of the “operation,” allegation;
• To assert a due diligence defence when reasonable efforts were taken to avoid the offence:
  As a strict liability offence, a conviction may occur despite a lack of intent to violate the law; however, a defendant may avoid liability by showing that reasonable steps were taken to comply with the bylaw.  This may include ensuring roof lights are turned off when off duty, removing identifying markings when unavailable for hire, or parking away from designated taxi areas while on a break.  These steps may help establish that the defendant exercised all reasonable care to avoid committing the infraction;
• To identify procedural defects or enforcement irregularities:
  A review of the conduct of municipal officers may reveal a failure to provide clear identification, request information properly, or initiate the inspection at a reasonable time or place.  While such issues may fail to lead to a dismissal, these issues may help to support arguments against the credibility of enforcement officer observations or raise concerns about fairness in the process; and
• To confirm whether the local bylaw was lawfully enacted and properly applies to the alleged activity:
  Licensing requirements differ between municipalities.  It is vital to ensure that the specific bylaw cited was in force at the time of the alleged offence, applies to the area where the incident occurred, and clearly captures the conduct in question.  Ambiguities in bylaw language may be interpreted in favour of the defendant.

By carefully examining the factual context and legal framework, a well-structured defence may challenge the elements of the charge or support a showing of due diligence, especially where the defendant made genuine efforts to comply with local taxi licensing rules.

Conclusion

Defending a charge of operating a taxi without a license requires an understanding that “operation” extends beyond physical driving and may include broader circumstances such as vehicle availability.  These offences are generally strict liability, meaning the absence of intent fails as a viable defence.  A successful defence must instead be grounded in a showing of due diligence efforts to avoid committing the offence.

As each municipality enforces unique licensing standards, it is essential to review the applicable local bylaw.  Contextual factors, such as time, location, and vehicle indicators, may play a pivotal role in determining whether a bylaw was contravened.  Courts take a pragmatic approach in evaluating whether a vehicle was made available to the public, and the presence or absence of clear compliance measures may determine the outcome of the case.