The plaintiff taxi licensees sought to bring a class proceeding against the City of Toronto for economic losses they claimed to have suffered due to the City’s alleged failure to enforce its by-laws against Uber and other similar private transportation companies. Justice Perell dismissed the motion for certification on the grounds that the claim did not disclose a cause of action. Specifically, he found that the City did not owe a private law duty of care to the plaintiffs because the duty to regulate private transportation companies is a duty owed to the public as a whole, and did not extend to impose a duty to protect the plaintiffs’ economic interests. The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court. Justice Favreau dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that it was plain and obvious that the City did not owe a private law duty of care in the circumstances.
