|
Municipal - Licensing. Samhadana v. City of Toronto and Toronto Licensing Tribunal
In Samhadana v. City of Toronto and Toronto Licensing Tribunal (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court outlines the Toronto Licensing Tribunal:[2] The City of Toronto Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 11 ("COTA") grants the City broad authority to pass by-laws respecting, inter alia: business licensing; the well-being of the City, and consumer protection.
[3] The City has exercised this authority to create Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 546, Licensing of Vehicles-for-Hire,2 which, among other things, requires vehicle-for-hire (taxicab and limousine) drivers to obtain a licence to operate and to comply with certain regulations.
[4] The City’s Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (“MLS”) has delegated authority to administer the licensing system under Chapter 546. However, where MLS seeks to revoke or place conditions on an existing licence, the matter must be referred to the TLT for a hearing.
[5] The TLT is an independent, quasi-judicial administrative body that has delegated authority to determine whether a business licence should be suspended, revoked, or have conditions placed upon it. The TLT may exercise these powers where it has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a licensee will not carry on their business with integrity and honesty, where the conduct of the business has breached or may breach the law, or where the conduct of the licensee has endangered or would endanger the rights, health, or safety or other members of the public.
....
[18] The standard on which the TLT’s decisions were to be based is “reasonable grounds for belief”, which “requires something more than mere suspicion, but less that the standard applicable in civil matters of proof on the balance of probabilities,”(Yarco Developments Inc. v. Home Construction Regulatory Authority (Registrar), 2024 ONSC 93 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 56-57). The ultimate standard of review of the TLT’s decision will be reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, supra at para. 16).
|
