Gerry Manley

Gerald H. Manley Taxi Owner, Plate# 416 105 Rowena Drive, Apt.
405 Toronto, Ontario M3A 1R2
11 December 2011 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Dear John, As you are aware, the latest roundtable discussions to reform Torontos taxi industry began with the meeting at Cedarbrook Community Center this past Thursday. It was very evident that Toronto city hall staff had put a lot of effort into facilitating this meeting and I am sure that all attendees were appreciative of that effort. I would suggest that if a meeting such as this is conducted in the future that a different venue be considered. I could hardly hear the person next to me, as there was a lot of noise emulating from the entire room. The City had provided city staff facilitators for each table to take notes and help with the discussion process. A very could idea and helpful but unfortunately not every table had one. It was refreshing not to hear any animosity as in past meetings such as a Councillor for example at one of our previous meetings telling one of members if he did not like what was occurring in the industry then perhaps he should go and flip burgers. The meeting was cordial and a great deal of information was discussed but was this just more smoke and mirrors coming from city hall as in the past or will Councillors and staff really listen and adopt industry input? I would like to point out some things that perhaps the meeting attendees and all of our industrys membership may or may not have considered and at the end of my report you may make your own conclusions. The meeting itself did not adhere to the letter that was sent out. The Citys invitation letter specifically said that it was an industry workshop for industry representatives to discuss and identify industry issues and provide suggestions on how the City could conduct a review. This begs the question as to why were representatives other than industry members invited to this meeting such as police, union and association, disabled community etc.? Yes there is a need to consult with these groups but they should not have any input on how we conduct our review or the topics discussed. The meeting was by invitation only to more or less set the agenda not to discuss the issues yet there were non-invited industry members that showed up and were allowed to participate and some issues got into the discussion phase. Our industry membership need to understand that this and subsequent other meetings and workshops are not done solely out of the kindness of Toronto city hall. The Province mandates major stakeholder meetings be held when the City makes any major changes in any area under their privy and this is no exception. Councillor Palacio, the Chair of the Licensing & Standards started off the meeting by saying the City is committed to making these meetings open and transparent but is that really true? Consider the following.
A common tactic used by governments and big business when setting parameters for general meetings such as the one we attended last Thursday is to bring an agenda already started so the attendees will focus on their agenda without bringing forward any other issues that the meeting facilitator may not want to discuss. Yes the agenda items they had printed on their sheets are important to the industry but have already been brought to the Citys attention and will be discussed at future meetings. Individuals and groups have lobbied these particular concerns to death at city hall over the past several months as they address hidden agendas that will be beneficial to them but not necessarily the entire industry. Because of that ploy, almost all tables discussed primarily those agenda items the City brought forward and little time was spent on other issues that are just as important to our members. If the City was going to be clear and transparent there should not have been any suggestive topics listed and then other issues would have been brought forward as their tactic gives all the appearance that they believe these are the most important and perhaps the only topics they are truly interested in discussing. One of the most glaring and unnecessary agenda items was conversion to a dedicated vehicle. Other than Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong who is no longer a member of the L&S Committee, no other city hall or industry member is even remotely interested in having a dedicated vehicle for many obvious reasons. So why is this even on the agenda list? The future will tell if their promise to address all industry concerns will be adhered to. Their on-line survey asks you to list your three most important issues to be discussed. I do not believe that is a fair and transparent way to conduct this survey. Although lower down in the survey you can list other issues that concern you, there is no guarantee they or even your first three choices will ever make the discussion table even though they may have an industry impact if not resolved. At the review in 1998 most of the points brought forward were by the City, not our membership and added up to over seventy points of which well over fifty were finally adopted. I believe we have at least that many if not more issues that need attention but the time frame set by Committee to have staff table a report with recommendations by the second quarter of 2012 is not nearly enough time to address all of our concerns. The taxi by-law itself is in need of a complete re-write and that alone would more than eat up this time frame. The focus of the 8 December 2011 meeting by most of the attendees was the Ambassador issue and to get those plates made standard plates and all other issues appeared to take a back burner position. This approach will not get us to the resolution stage of all of our issues never mind the end result if that conversion was ever adopted. To adopt this conversion could have the potential of completely destroying the possibility of taxi drivers to make a living with the added drivers, up to 1400, that would appear driving Toronto taxis in an industry already over stocked with taxis, drivers and attempting to survive in a depressed economy that has seen our usage dramatically drop in most areas. Regardless of what certain individuals such as some brokerage operators, union or association representatives tell you, there is one issue and one issue only that is of paramount importance to all taxi drivers who drive our streets each and every day to earn a living and that is There are too many taxis licensed in the City of Toronto. If the City does not come to the discussion table committed to reducing the size of our present fleet, most of the other concerns we need to resolve will become redundant.
The City must conduct an impartial economic impact study and come up with a fair and responsible licensing issuing formula. The arbitrary issuance of taxi and taxi drivers licenses of any kind must cease immediately until these steps have been taken. No longer can the City take the position that taxi service to the public is their primary and only concern in the multitude of outstanding issues that remain unresolved in the Toronto taxi industry. Without a healthy and viable taxi industry customer need and service cannot be achieved, as one is reliant on the other. It is important to point that the agenda items brought forward by the City are repeats from the 1998 reformation and the people pushing for them are for the most part the same people who pushed for them in 1998. The reason we have to deal with them again is the initial resolve of 1998 did not meet their expectations. If the City does not take the time to look back over the past fifty years of mistakes made in this industry, there will be no guarantee that what they will come up with will be any different. It has all the appearance to me that the previous five decades dont even exist as far as the City is concerned and that we are starting fresh from December 8, 2011 and I can tell you, that approach will not work. I have attended most major industry meetings for almost forty years now with mixed emotions. My heart tells me each and every time that maybe this time the City will do the right thing for our industry but then my industry experience, common sense and gut feelings take over telling me that the same old dog and pony show will be the final result and to be honest with you, that has not changed this time around either. I believe that the citys position will not included reducing their revenues, which would occur in a necessary fleet reduction and that will clearly show the Citys lack of concern as to whether taxi drivers make a viable living or not. It will be a daunting task for city hall to responsibly resolve many of our industrys outstanding issues and I dont believe they will achieve any reasonable or responsible level of success. My challenge to city hall is to prove me wrong. Show our industry and all taxi consumers you will not repeat the same mistakes as your predecessors and carry on with the same old same old in not resolving this industrys dilemmas because in four years there will probably someone else on the L&S Committee and they can deal with it.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley 416-948-1921
Gerry Manley 105 Rowena Dr. Suite 405 Toronto Ontario M3A 1R2 Taxi Owner - Plate #416
1 May 2012 Mr. John Duffy Publisher, Taxi News Toronto Ontario Dear John, If someone would take on the daunting task of making a movie or writing a play about the Toronto taxi industry I am sure it would be called Hopeless in Hog Town. Every time you turn the corner in this industry, there is another issue of unfairness and questionable legality. The Citys Refresher and CPR/First-Aid courses undoubtedly fit these categories. The mandated attendance at these courses is discriminatory at the very least. Other than taxi and livery owners and drivers, there is not one other individual that holds a city business license that is required to attend a Refresher or CPR/First Aid course. When checking 545-2 (A) License Requirements I would think that the license holders as described in sections (10), (16), (17), (20), (27), (31), (37), (40), (44), (47), (50), (52), (60), (61), (62), & (63) to name a few, would necessitate Refresher and/or CPR/First Aid training courses well before a taxi or livery owner or driver just in the sheer number of people they deal with, which is more in their average day than what an individual owner or driver in our industries would probably deal with in a week. 545-2 License Requirements A (9) states, Every owner and every driver of a cab. This is how we are defined in this industry and that classification is supposed to be applicable throughout this by-law but as you will see when reading this article, Municipal Licensing & Standards staff through the Toronto Licensing & Standards Committee has created different categories for taxi owners to suit their own purposes. For example under Article VIII Owners and Driver of Cabs, they violate 545-2 A(9) by stating, Driver- A driver of a cab who is licensed as such or required to be licensed as such under this chapter, and includes, an owner who drives a cab. They have in affect arbitrarily made an owner a driver for the purpose of this section of the by-law to make sure they have to attend the Refresher and CPR/First Aid courses as described in Article VIII. To make it even worse, they have exempted the non-driver taxi owner from attending the CPR/First Aid course therefore in my opinion, illegally splitting the standard owners category as described in 545-2 A (9), which amounts to creating a third category for the purposes of Article VIII, which by the way is not even included in the wording of this section but is just capriciously done by the MLS.
Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net
I contacted Mr. Bruce Robertson for an explanation and interpretation of why there are additional definitions and applications for taxi owners in Article VIII that are not seen anywhere else in the by-law. He responded by saying, I cant speak for the reasons why, but I can tell you that By-law 67-80 in 1980 added it to the definition of a driver. I suspect the intent was to make sure owners who drive their taxicabs were included in the various provisions that apply to drivers. Mr. Robertsons assessment suits the purposes as to what the City wants to do but the definition for taxi owners and drivers is very distinct in License Requirements 545-2 A (9) stating Every owner and every taxi driver, not a combination of both. That section does not give any additional definitions for taxi owners and is supposed to be the overriding and defining licensing classification of a taxi owner for the purpose of this by-law. Until the categorization in this section is changed, then the description of a taxi owner/driver as portrayed in Article VIII should be considered without effect. If you believe that assessment is incorrect, then you must consider that Article VIII states taxi owners, for the purpose of this section are considered taxi drivers. The City cannot have it both ways. We are either taxi owners or taxi drivers as described in 545-2 A (9), not a combination of both to suit the Citys purpose of commanding attendance at courses leading to the extraction of additional licensing fees. I would ask all the readers of taxi news to consider the following and then tell me whether you feel the following is fair. The 3-day refresher course charge is included in the taxi drivers annual renewal fee of $310.22. As a standard plate owner, I pay an annual licensing fee of $1,174.66, which is almost 4 times the fee of the taxi driver yet a 2-day additional refresher course charge of $120 is applied to taxi owners but not the taxi driver. Regardless of how this is viewed, it is grossly unfair and obvious to anyone of ordinary care and judgment to be nothing more than licensing cash grab of mammoth proportion. Although part of the licensing by-law for many years, taxi owner appearance at the refresher course was never initiated. A few years ago the City decided to make owners attend this course and I was invited to and attended a two-day workshop to give input into a module that had been created for the standard plate owners refresher course. I noted at that time the course for the most part, was nothing more than going over the by-law. I recommended the attendance at this course was unnecessary considering the by-law is available on-line and the vast majority of our members have computers at home. Whatever else was discussed other than by-law requirements, amounted to nothing more than common sense. Today, I completed my mandated refresher course and in my opinion, there was no appreciable gain of knowledge that supported any logical reason for my attendance. Over the almost 40 years I have been active in the Toronto taxi industry on a day-today basis, it is my contention I have gained knowledge on the job that has made me a reasonably successful taxi owner/operator thus negating any rational reason for me to attend a refresher course. My required attendance did not enhance my customer service skills, increase my knowledge of the taxi by-law or lead me to put any additional revenues in my pocket. 2
On 24 March 2012, I completed my mandated One-Day (1-Day) First Aid/CPR Training Course and came to the conclusion that this course was even more unnecessary than the refresher course. Consider the following. There is no legal obligation to apply first aid to our customers and coming in physical contact with an injured person could put the taxi drivers health in danger, as we are not equipped to deal with diseases that could be transmitted through the air or blood spills originating from the injured person. Taxis are not furnished with a defibulator or do we have ready access to one and are not equipped with a competent first aid kit. The cost to equip each taxi with the necessary equipment would be in excess of $1,500 per taxi, which I am sure the City would not pay for but would pass that expense on to the taxi owner, never mind the cost of required continual maintenance. Many of our drivers are prohibited by cultural or religious decrees/or beliefs to even look at a bare body of the opposite sex so the application of a defibulator in those cases is out of the question. The message that our instructors gave out time and time again was to make sure we call 911 for most emergency cases we come in contact with. That is a reasonable thing to expect from a taxi driver and is done by every driver I know of but to expect our drivers to do more is unrealistic and dangerous. Taxi drivers and owners are required to take this course because of their contact with the general public in their workplace. This shows a bias towards our industry members. A Toronto Transportation Commission driver of a bus, streetcar or subway for example comes in contact with more people in one run of his/her daily shift than a taxi driver sees in one month, yet they are not mandated to take a Refresher Course or a First Aid/CPR Course. In the almost 40 years I have been a Toronto taxi/owner operator, I have not nor have I heard of a taxi driver administering any first aid to a client nor would I expect them to do so other than calling for emergency (911) assistance.
There is also some confusion on the Important Notice that is sent out to inform you when you have to take the First Aid/CPR course. By-law S. 545-131 (B) (b) does not state once every three (3) years as in the Notice, but states once every four consecutive years. They actually mean one in the same thing depending on when you renew your licence but it might be advisable to have the Notice state what is actually in the by-law to stop any misunderstanding. The costs of the courses, HST and three (3) days of lost wages, have personally cost me between $650.00 and $750.00, which will be very hard to recoup in the depressed economic climate that presently faces all industry members. These courses are nothing more than licensing cash grabs that help support staffs wages at not only the taxi school but the people running the First Aid/ CPR course as well. I do not believe it is the position of our industry members to take on the responsibility of financing any additional City of Toronto employment through a mandated attendance at needless City of Toronto courses. 3
I would ask for the $120.00 plus HST course fee be returned to me as I am categorized for the purpose of these courses as a taxi driver not a taxi owner and a taxi drivers annual license renewal fee covers the refresher course cost, but good luck with that one. I would also request someone at Toronto City hall use some common sense and have the totally unnecessary refresher and first aid course requirements immediately removed from the by-law as the only prevailing thing it does manage to accomplish is to further put our drivers and owners in a more precarious financial position. Instead of teaching HTA and bylaw traffic requirements, which by the way as a licensed driver in this province I am deemed to know, why dont you emulate their program? When their license is issued, they do not require me to take a Refresher and/or First Aid/ CPR course ever, even though I may drive thousands of people during my lifetime. They do require a retest when I reach 80, which is something you may consider if I am still driving taxi at that time. Their approach is that I am supposed to know all applicable laws in regards to driving and vehicle safety. If I violate those laws I am issued a ticket to appear in answer to the alleged violation. Perhaps you might contemplate this and do likewise instead of costing our members millions of dollars in mandated attendance at, for the most part, useless courses. Councillor Palacio has publicly stated that the ongoing reformation meetings are going to be transparent and all issues will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. Well Councillor if that is the case, then lets tell the real reasons why these courses were initiated in the first place and it was not for the benefit of the consumer or the industry member as the end results of these courses can easily be proven as pointless because the final outcome and application is insignificant at best. The true reasons these courses came about is someone at Toronto City Hall believed it was the politically correct thing to do and the second and most logical reason is to carry on city halls history of using the Toronto taxi industry as a licensing cash cow that helps support the MLS mandated budget requirements. Our industrys licensing contributions are around $10,000,000 annually, which amounts to approximately 65% of MLSs required operating revenues yet it is doubtful that the Toronto taxi industry receives 65% of the MLSs manpower as required by an Ontario provincial statute. I have submitted this article for Taxi News mainly for our memberships edification and I would recommend they do as I have done, which is to write, email or phone not only the MLS Committee members but also Mayor Ford and their councillors that sit on city council to have these totally unjustified and ludicrous courses removed from the by-law thus negating the requirement of our membership to have to attend them. I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - 2012 Taxi Review
From: To: Date: Subject: CC:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> <taxireview@toronto.ca> 4/28/2012 3:18 PM 2012 Taxi Review Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, ML&S Taxi Investigation Services Director Lance Cumberbatch <Lcumber@toronto.ca>, ML&S Acting Manager Licensing Enforcement Richard Mucha <rmucha@toronto.ca>, ML&S Director Of Licensing Services Bruce Robertson <brobert1@toronto.ca>, ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, ML&S Ian Redfearn <iredfear@toronto.ca>, City Of Toronto Deputy City Manager John Livey <jlivey@toronto.ca>, City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>
To All Concerned, I am sure that city hall staff, councillors and the review team are very aware that I am one of the most outspoken critics on how poorly this industry has been handled by city hall for the past 50 years now. With that said, I believe that if compliments are due, they should also be given. The reformation process this time around has clearly been the best that I have seen in my lengthy career in the industry. It is evident that MLS staff have put a great deal of time effort and resources into this process and I know that the industry members that involve themselves, as few as we are, are appreciative of your efforts. It has been refreshing to see that staff this time around is truly listening to what we have to say. That is not to say that their recommendations will be beneficial to the vast majority of our members and I will hold my accolades on that point until they release their findings and recommendations but they are listening and that at least from my perspective is appreciative. I am aware that you do not have the final say in all of this either so I hope that all of your hard work will not go unrewarded by Committee & Council as what happened in the 1998 meetings. When the 1998 meetings concluded staff after an exhaustive investigation reported that they did not recommend the Ambassador program to go ahead for many of the reasons that are coming out this time around. Councillor Moscoe interceded and directed staff to change their analysis to show the program would work and of course as their boss from council they accommodated the request. So my advice to staff is to keep up the high quality of their meetings by listening to the members that are involved in the process. If you do, it will become abundantly clear what course of action should be taken but do not put your hopes that Committee, Council or our membership will agree either partially or fully with your assessment and I included myself in that group. Thank you for entertaining my input and addressing my concerns on how the process was proceeding. The 27 April 2012 Standard plate owners' meeting was the way all of our meetings should be handled and that is to have full disclosure in all future meetings. I left the meeting believing we accomplished more in that one meeting than all of the previous meetings combined.
Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net
05/02/2012
Page 1 of 3
taxireview - Invitation to Meeting for Standard Taxicab Owners - Friday, April 27, 2012 - 9-12
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca>, ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca> 4/23/2012 5:29 PM Invitation to Meeting for Standard Taxicab Owners - Friday, April 27, 2012 - 9-12 Councillor Adam Vaughan Ward 20 Trinity-Spadina <councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca>, Councillor Ana Bailao Ward 18 Davenport <councillor_bailao@toronto.ca>, Councillor David Shiner Ward 24 Willowdale <councillor_shiner@toronto.ca>, Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong Ward 34 Don Valley East <councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca>, Councillor Doug Ford Ward 2 Etobicoke North <councillor_dford@toronto.ca>, Councillor Doug Holyday Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_holyday@toronto.ca>, Councillor Frank Di Giorgio Ward 12 York South-Weston <councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca>, Councillor Gary Crawford Ward 36 Scarborough Southwest <councillor_crawford@toronto.ca>, Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti Ward 7 York West <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>, Councillor Gord Perks Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park <councillor_perks@toronto.ca>, Councillor James Pastermak Ward 10 York Centre <councillor_pasternak@toronto.ca>, Councillor Janet Davis Ward 31 Beaches-East York <councillor_davis@toronto.ca>, Councillor Jaye Robinson Ward 25 Don Valley Don Valley West <councillor_robinson@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Joe Mihevc Ward 21 St. Paul's" <councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca>, Councillor John Filion Ward 23 Willowdale <councillor_filion@toronto.ca>, Councillor John Parker Ward 26 Don Valley West <councillor_parker@toronto.ca>, Councillor Josh Colle Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence <councillor_colle@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Josh Matlow Ward 22 St. Paul's" <councillor_matlow@toronto.ca>, Councillor Karen Stintz Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence <councillor_stintz@toronto.ca>, Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale <councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, Councillor Maria Augimeri Ward 9 York Centre <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>, Councillor Mark Grimes Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore <councillor_grimes@toronto.ca>, Councillor Mary Fragedakis Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth <councillor_fragedakis@toronto.ca>, Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon Ward 32 Beaches-East York <councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca>, Councillor Michael Thompson Ward 37 Scarborough Centre <councillor_thompson@toronto.ca>, Councillor Michelle Berardinetti ward 35 Scarborough Southwest <councillor_berardinetti@toronto.ca>, Councillor Mike Del Grande Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt <councillor_delgrande@toronto.ca>, Councillor Mike Layton Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina <councillor_layton@toronto.ca>, Councillor Norm Kelly Ward 30 ScarboroughAgincourt <councillor_kelly@toronto.ca>, Councillor Pam McConnell Ward 28 Toronto CentreRosedale <councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca>, Councillor Paul Ainslie Ward 43 Scarborough-East <councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca>, Councillor Paula Fletcher Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth <councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>, Councillor Peter Milczyn Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore <councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca>, Councillor Raymond Cho Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_cho@toronto.ca>, Councillor Ron Moeser Ward 44 Scarborough East <councillor_moeser@toronto.ca>, Councillor Sarah Doucette Ward 13 Parkdale-High park <councillor_doucette@toronto.ca>, Councillor Shelley Carroll Ward 33 Don Valley East <councillor_carroll@toronto.ca>, Councillor Vincent Crisanti Ward 1 Etobicoke North <councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca>, City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, Taxi News <john@taxinews.com>
05/02/2012
Page 2 of 3
Taxi Review, I along with some of the other standard taxicab owners will attend this meeting only if it meets certain parameters. Right off the bat, I see that staff has brought forward an agenda, limited in scope as to what needs to be discussed. If the meeting is for our group to see what issues WE !!!!!!! feel needed addressing, don't you believe it is prudent for us to bring forward the agenda of items we believe need discussing, not staff? What you are proposing to discuss will take up the entire 3 hours leaving no time to talk about many other concerns we have. You have stated in this email that the meeting is required for our group because of the under-representation of members in the standard taxicab owners group during these reformation meetings so I find it rather puzzling why you have come up with 5 categories you believe we want to talk about when you have not heard from the vast majority in our group? 1. The meeting will be one of full disclosure not just point answering questions that you have formatted.
2. The meeting is for standard taxicab owners only, which brings up the question as to why has a "W" plate operator been invited to this meeting and raises concerns in our group if staff has invited any other members of the industry as well that are not standard taxicab owners? 3. Is this meeting open for discussions on any other topics other than the ones you have alluded to in this email? 4. We are all under the belief that one 3 hour meeting will not come close to fully discussing all the Items that need to be talked about, so is staff open to additional meetings with our group for full discussions and disclosures? Seeing as many city hall Councillors and theirs staff's have granted meetings to certain groups including the itaxiworkers, we believe that if those Councillors and/or their staffs are available, we would like their attendance at this and other meetings involving standard plate owners and operators so they can hear the other side of the story, which we believe is of paramount importance if they really want to make an educated decision on all of the outstanding issues in this industry, especially on the Ambassador taxi issue that appears to be the number one topic from staff's position, but is not from our position. I have stated I would attend this meeting when phoned by Carol of the review staff after she somewhat assured me that the points I mentioned here would be respected. I am requesting a written response from the staff of the review team or the Executive Director that this meeting will adhere to the points that I and some of my fellow standard taxicab owners would like to see and have been asked for in this email. With that written reply of assurance, I will attend. Without it, I will not as in my opinion and other standard taxicab owners as well, we feel it would be a waste of everyone's time and God knows many of us have spent an inordinate amount of time and resources on these meetings already. Personally, I would not be available for the 1 May 2012 meeting as I have been mandated to attend an industry refresher course on that date. The mandated attendance at this course and the First Aid course as well, is a major bone of contention not only from our group but the entire industry and will require serious discussion hopefully leading to these unnecessary courses being abolished. I look forward to a response at your earliest convenience so I can officially reply as to whether I will attend or not. Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net
From: taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:03:34 -0400 To: taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Subject: Invitation to Meeting for Standard Taxicab Owners - Friday, April 27, 2012 - 9-12
Hello everyone, You are invited to a meeting for Standard Taxicab Licence Owners on Friday, April 27, 2012, 9 am - 12 pm. Due to the under-representation in consultation attendance thus far, the review team is inviting Standard Taxicab Owners to discuss issues specific to their licence type. This message has been distributed to Standard Taxicab Licence Owner's on our review mailing list; please feel free to distribute this invitation to other Standard Taxicab Licence Owners. Also, please confirm your attendance by email or by leaving a voice message at 416-338-3095. Details:
05/02/2012
Page 3 of 3
Meeting: The Standard Taxicab Owner's Licence
Friday, April 27, 2012, 9 am - 12 pm

City Hall Member's Lounge, 100 Queen Street West M5H 2N2 Standard taxicab owners are invited to discuss the standard taxicab owner's licence, appropriate number of taxicabs, transferability of taxicabs, dedicated vehicles, customer service and training. Those Standard Owners who are unable to attend are invited to attend consultations on May 1, 2 and 3; please register for May 1, 2 and 3 online or submit your comments by email, voice mail or mail. Thank you for your continuing participation in the 2012 Taxicab Industry Review. We have been compiling your recommendations received through consultations, the taxicab training centre, taxicab stands, City facilities, email, voicemail and written submissions. Submissions from all sources are being considered carefully by the review team. Best regards, The 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Team Web Page: www.toronto.ca/taxireview Email: taxireview@toronto.ca Comments Line: (416) 338-3095 TTY: (416) 338-0889 Fax: (416) 397-5463
05/02/2012
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings
From: GerryManley<gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> <taxireview@toronto.ca> To: Date: 3/31/20126:45PM Subject:TaxiReformationMeetings CC: CityofTorontoMayorRobFord<mayor_ford@toronto.ca>,CouncillorL&SChairCesar PalacioWard17Davenport<councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>,ML&SExecutiveDirector TraceyCook<tcook2@toronto.ca>,TaxiNews<john@taxinews.com>
DearTaxiReview, IhavejustfinishedreadingApril2012TaxiNewsandreadthatstaffisconcernedandfrustratedatthelowturnoutofcertainindustrymembersatthe ongoingreformationmeetings.IcanappreciateyourfeelingsasobviouslyyouhaveputalotofeffortinsettingthesemeetingsupandIforonebelieveyou areowedanexplanationandIwilltrytodothatinthisemail. MostofyouhavenotbeenaffiliatedwiththeTorontotaxiindustryforverylonganddonotknowthehistoryofwherethisindustryhascomefrom.Ifyou did,youwouldbeabletodecipherwhyIandotherindustrymembershavechosennottoattend.TheCityhasrepeatablyrefusedtolookbackatindustry issuesandinmyopinionthatisamistake,asyoucannotfixwhatyoudonotunderstandespeciallysinceyouwerenottherewhentheproblemssurfaced. CouncillorPalacio,theChairoftheLicensing&StandardsCommitteehasstatedonmorethanoneoccasionthathewantsthesemeetingstobeopenand transparentbutIforone,donotbelieveheclearlyunderstandswhatthatactuallymeans.Puttingdotsonasheetofpaperastowhetheryouconcurornotis afarcryfrombeingclearandtransparent.Forthattooccur,youwouldneedfulldisclosureoneachandeverypointtobringoutwhyyoufeelthewayyou do.Withoutthat,commongroundisunattainable. TheCitythroughL&Sandstaffhavebeenfarfromhonestwiththeindustry.Beforethesemeetingswerestarted,theindustrywasassuredthateach individualgroupwouldbegivenseparatemeetingstoairtheirconcernsandbringforwardwhattheybelievewouldresolvetheissues.Otherthanthe drivers,whichonly7showedupattheir1stof2meetings,thathasnothappened. TheinitialmeetingthatwasheldinDecemberof2011wassupposedtobeforindustrymemberstosetanagendabutwhenwearrived,therewereother peopleotherthanindustrymemberswhowereinvitedtoattendandtheCityshowedupwithaneightitempreparedagenda.Weobviouslyareawarethat weneedtoconsultwiththeseothergroupsbuttheyshouldnothavehadanyinputintoanagendaforourmembers.IftheCitytrulywantedtobeopenand transparent,theywouldnothavecomewithapreparedagendaasthatobviouslytellsuswhattheywanttotalkaboutbutitdoesnotreflectallwhatwe wouldliketodiscuss. The1stmeetinginMarch2012,wassupposedtobefordiscussiononhowweweregoingtoproceedwiththemeetingsbysettingaformat.Tooursurprise, theCitycamewith2itemstobediscussed,whichnotonlywerenotontheiroriginalagendabutonly20minuteswasgiventodiscussthemandthenput dotsonapaperastowhetheryouconcurredwithobservationsmadebytheattendeesbuttherewasnoopendiscussionsordisclosureonthosepoints. WhenIwantedtodiscussotherpointsaswaspromisedtometobeabletodoatanymeeting,thefacilitatorstatedwedidn'thavetimeandhadtostickwith theCity's2itemagendathatnooneknewaboutuntilwearrived. Asyoucansee,theCitycannotevenstayontrackbyabidingwiththeirownagendaanddowhatevertheyfeeltheywanttoatanymeetingandthisisthe reasonwhymanyindustrymembershavewithdrawnfromattending.Itisashameasmanyofushavebeeninthisindustryfordecadesandknowwhatthe issuesareandcouldcontributeinamuchbroaderscopethanthetunnelvisionedAmbassadorgroup,whoarefixatedontheirownsingularissuebutitis obviousthattheCityhastheirownideas.Areyoubeginningtoseewhywewithdrewfromattending? TheAmbassadorissuehastakenoverallthemeetingsforthemostpartandmostoftheirmembershiphavenoideawhatpaththeyarewalkingdownand carelittleaboutmanyotherseriousoutstandingissuesthatareeverybitasimportantastheirs.TheyarefixatedonhavingtheirAmbassadorplates convertedtostandardplatesforonereasononlyandithasn'tanythingtodowithaseconddriver.Theywillsellthemassoonastheycanandafterthey spendthemoneyinafewshortyearswillbebackbangingoncityhalldoorscomplainingagain.Keepinkindthisisthesamegroupthatcriedfoulinthefirst placein1998andtheCitylistenedtothemthenandlookwherethathasgotus.Alsoremember,theyknewwhattheyreceivedandallthesurrounding parametersoftheprogramandacceptedthoseplatesonthatpremise. IftheCityisfoolishenoughtolistentothemagain,itwillclearlybethefinalnailinthecoffinforthisindustry.TheseAmbassadoroperatorsandtheirnonregisteredvoice,theitaxiworkershavenoconceptoftheirreparableharmthatwillbedoneiftheCitygoesalongwithwhattheywantliketheydidin1998. Nowdoyouunderstandwhywehavetolookbacktoseewhatwasdonesowedon'tmakethesamemistakes? Thisisnotthecompletestorybutitwillgiveyousomeideaofwhythemembersthatshouldbeattendingarenot.TheCityhasliedtothisindustryfor5 decadesandwearegettingalittletiredofitsothistimewehavechosennottowasteanymoretimeandwillwatchwhatthefinaloutcomewillbeandifit
05/02/2012
Page 2 of 2
doesnottreatallofourmembersinafairandresponsiblemanner,Icanassureyouthereismorethanenoughdatathistimetowinacourtcaseanditwill endupthere. IfyouwishtoknowwhatIfeelarethemostimportantissuesthatshouldbediscussed,IinviteyoutogoontheTorontotaxinewswebsiteandtheyhave postedmostofmycorrespondencethere.Havingspentseveralhundredsofhourspreparingforthesereformationmeetingsbydoingresearch,interviews, reportsandemails,IcanassureyouthatIamjustasdisappointedinhowtheCityisconductingthemselvesasyouarewithourmembers,whichafter50 yearsplusofindustryabusebytheCityofToronto,trumpsyourdisappointmentmanytimesover. GerryManley Phone:(416)948-1921 E-mail:gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website:http://www.taxidriversafety.net
05/02/2012
Page 1 of 3
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> 3/13/2012 5:26 PM Taxi Reformation Meetings ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>
To Whom It may Concern, To keep abreast at to what is occurring at the upcoming reformation meetings, I would appreciate my name to be left on the emailing list as I am compiling a file for potential future use. As to the consultations not being beneficial, I will take this opportunity to give my reasons for withdrawing from attending future meetings in the hope that it might help any Toronto City Hall meetings either now or in the future. For a format such as this to work, you must not only consider Councillor Palacio's often used words of " Being Totally Transparent" to include "Full Disclosure." At the most recent meeting, staff came out with a format of putting down points of concern on a sheet without any discussions as to what those concerns entailed and then asked the attendees to fill in a dot as to whether support the remark or not in varying degrees. This does not come anywhere close to full disclosure thus making these meetings ineffectual. You should have to support your ideas with discussions and perhaps your idea is solid or perhaps middle ground can be achieved. When you give your word as to what will be occurring at these meetings, you must at all costs keep it. Without that, you will have breached the trust of the attendees and little to nothing will be achieved. Staff committed and promised individual group meetings and that promise has been broken. The December 2011 meeting was supposed to be for industry members to set an agenda. Other people attended this meeting that were not industry members and staff came with an 8 point prepared agenda. Again, broken promises. Yes, we need to talk to individual groups outside the industry that are affected by our service but they should not have input as to what is on our agenda, nor should staff have come to those meetings with a pre-conceived agenda either. The final icing on the cake came at the March 9 meeting, where your meeting agenda did not reference any issues to be addressed but was to discuss parameters of future meetings and what had occurred at the December 2011 meeting. Again, changed agenda and broken promises. Not only did you discuss serious industry issues but only gave a total of about 20 minutes for discussion, which is not even close to the needed time and you also prioritized those points from input from a small segment of the industry as to their importance. I can assure you that taxi drivers and taxi owners would have prioritized them quite differently. Over the past 40 years, I have attended dozens of city hall meetings on outstanding issues in the Toronto taxi industry, as a full time standard plate owner/operator. What I have seen this time is nothing more than a repeat of what has happened over the past 4 decades in that city hall that does not understand the issues; never takes the time to look back into the history of what has occurred already as to not make the same mistakes; listens to a small number of industry members who are their for their own personal gain without a care of what it might do to the health of the industry; city hall pretty well following suit of the small numbers of industry members but in their case making sure they achieve unreasonable licensing fees; staff and councillors with limited service within the industry not understanding the issues and in the end, those meetings always evolved into more issues even more serious than the ones before and I am positive this time will be no different. I respect the fact that it is difficult for the City to ascertain what to do about all the issues as there is very little industry involvement, but many of the issues are very easy to see and the resolves are just as easy to attain if you want to. The reason the City doesn't want to as it may require a drop in revenues and that would be unacceptable from their perspective. I handed in a list containing 17 Major Points that need "FULL DISCUSSION," not just 20 minutes but I could have handed in a list of perhaps 40 to 60 other concerns that need to be addressed as well. Just as an example, the costs of a police check. We were informed by the City a number of years ago, that our licensing renewal fees were to be increased to pay for the police checks. Now that the City doesn't do the checks anymore and the individual industry member must pay for them, where is the reduction in licensing fees? The list goes on and on. I have sent a series of letters on the most serious industry issues I believe need to be addressed but for me to attend meetings where they in fact are not fully discussed is a waste of time. Here-in lays another broken promise. The industry was assured any issue could be discussed at any meeting yet when I tried to bring up other issues at the March 9 meeting, the facilitator said we did not have enough time to deviate from the 2 items staff brought forward that weren't even on the original agenda. This review like all the other reviews and city hall meetings that I have attended over the years does not have any validity in my eyes or many other industry members' eyes as well. Therefore to spend more time trying to get the City to do the right thing is fruitless as it is very apparent to me that you have already set a course of action on not only what you want to discuss but where you want those discussions to end up.
Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net
05/02/2012
Page 2 of 3
gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net
From: taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 09:22:09 -0400 To: Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Subject: Re: Taxi Reformation Meetings
Hello Gerry, We regret that you have not found the consultations beneficial and will respect your request to remove your name from the meeting lists. Would you also like to removed from the mailing list? As well, should you change your mind, you are welcome to attend future meetings that are not restricted to D01 licensees and the public.
Best regards, The 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Team Web Page: www.toronto.ca/taxireview Email: taxireview@toronto.ca Comments Line: (416) 338-3095 TTY: (416) 338-0889 Fax: (416) 397-5463
>>> On 3/9/2012 at 8:02 PM, in message <CB80124B.FA8%gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net>, Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> wrote: Councillor Palacio, Attending the city hall meeting today, it has become rather obvious that your words of a clear and transparent review are just that, words. It is common knowledge that private meetings with Staff and Councillors have already occurred. What is transparent about that? No private audiences on any industry issue should have been granted prior to these meetings as the greater majority of the industry was not made privy as to what those discussions were all about. The industry was promised meetings for each separate group as it will be confrontational on some points for us to meet all together. A meeting at the end of the review with representatives from each group could then be held to see if there is any common ground for the entire industry to bring forward their points. Other than taxi drivers, that promise has been broken. I have spent a great deal of personal time to research, write and bring forward industry issues for this review that also included some viable solutions to resolve them with the hope this might be the time the City will finally do the right thing. Today certainly showed me how foolish that idea was and how naive I was to believe that actually might happen. In my opinion, this was a waste of my time and that time should have been put to better use. As well as having a great disappointment on how City hall has conducted itself so far at these meeting, I am just as disappointed in the lack of industry involvement. Today there were maybe 45 or 50 industry members attending out of 12,000? We had more staff at this meeting than members. I don't believe that our membership deserves the hard work and time put in by a few of their fellow members trying to make this industry better when they do not want to spend one-second of time or one-penny of personal resources to help. I noted on Consultation 1 Planning Phase Summary, there was little done in regard to planning. The power point presentation went right into industry issues of yours and staff's choice, not the choice of all of our members. Where in this particular consultation, 9 March 2012 did it say we were going to discuss any issue? It was supposed to be a review of information
05/02/2012
Page 3 of 3
gathered in the planning stage and discussion of how the review will be conducted, not to discuss any issue at this particular meeting. The City again going out of format and proceeding with what they want done. It is very easy to talk the talk but a lot harder to walk the walk. Do you not think you should stick to what you tell us is going to occur at each particular meeting rather than arbitrarily changing it? Also the guarantee of being able to discuss any issue at any meeting did not come to fruition. The facilitator at our table and three other tables I checked believed as I did, we were supposed to stick to the two points described on the power point presentation and when other issues were raised we were asked to stick with the two points of the power point presentation. Another broken promise by the City. If you had taken the time to really seek industry input I am confident you would find that the Ambassador issue might not be the number one issue. Considering we have over 10,000 taxi drivers, 3,480 standard plate owners along with Accessible operators, I believe there would be other issues we feel are even more important than the Ambassador issue not withstanding it is important.This meeting was nothing more than a repeat of the December 11 meeting. The City comes to a meeting with its own agenda at both meetings where the meetings were supposedly being held to format an agenda. I have sent this email to the taxi review requesting my name be taken off the meeting dates I requested as it rather obvious the City will do what they want when they want and little to no consideration will be given to industry members when all is said and done. By me attending these meetings so far is shame on you for not sticking to your own agenda formats and breaking your promises, but for me to attend any more meetings knowing you will continue on in the same manner would be shame on me and I will assure you that will not occur. Although I feel all my hard work will fall on deaf ears in the long-term, you may use my input in any manner you deem is appropriate. I certainly will monitor what occurs and will be looking at all the final resolves and if I feel there has not been a fairness given to all industry members then I will seek that justice in other areas.
05/02/2012
Standard Taxi Owners Requested Agenda At Upcoming Reformation Meetings

1. Taxi Ownership & Transferability Plus Necessary By-law Changes. 2. Ambassador Taxi Program. 3. Airport Exemption Plus Necessary Statute Changes City Province Meeting. 4. Idling By-law Ministry Of Health Letter. 5. Singular Dedicated Vehicle - One Colour. 6. Hand-Held Devices Re 1 January 2013 Deadline. 7. AODA Conformity & Needed Provincial Meetings On-Demand Servicing. 8. Appropriateness Of The Present Number Of Taxis In The City. 9. Airport Flat Rates Violation Of By-law. 10. Police Service Interaction Illegal & Numbers Of Tickets issued. 11. City Violations Involving W Plate issuance & Operation. 12. Required Meetings With Ministry Of Labour Re WSIB Coverage Occupational Health & Safety Act (2009) Section 71 Dealing With Taxis. 13. Mandating Debit & Credit Machines With One Singular Transaction Fee. 14. ML&S Enforcement On Hotel Doormen & Illegal Pick-Ups. 15. Brokerage Violations Of City Business License. 16. Refresher & CPR/First Aid Course Elimination. 17. Private Vehicle Tax Rebate.
To All, It has only taken 14 months of several emails and numerous phone calls to get a response from Mayor Ford's office on the Private Vehicle Tax (PVT) refund that all Toronto taxi industry standard and ambassador owners are justly due. Whether the refund will come to fruition is another thing but Mayor Ford, or whomever his representative that sent this email to me, has agreed to have it discussed at the upcoming reformation meetings. I find it rather interesting that the email sender went into great detail of showing how the tax was stopped by Mayor Ford, which I can say was appreciated by all Toronto vehicle owners but certainly did not address his position on the 2 years of this tax that is owed to our taxi owner membership. Considering Mayor Miller's regime had acknowledged the error and rebated 1 year of the tax to our members, which clearly shows it was illegally applied, it should be a very easy decision for Mayor Ford to authorize the 2 outstanding years the tax was levied, to be given back. I would strongly suggest that all taxi owners discuss the PVT rebate at the meetings, as after all it is your money that was illegally taken and you have the right to have it returned. The City of Toronto has to be held accountable to the law just as all members of the Toronto Taxi Industry are. I remain,
Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net P.S. I have forward this email on to the appropriate people at city hall who are responsible for the agenda items at the upcoming taxi reformation meetings and will be specifically looking for this to be added to that agenda.
From: City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:57:41 -0500 To: Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Subject: Re: Mayor Ford's Lack Of Campaign Promise & Its Potential Impact On The Toronto Taxi Industry
Good Morning Gerry, Thank you for the email regarding the Personal Vehicle Tax (PVT).
The termination of the City's PVT became effective on January 1st, 2011. All vehicle owners in the City of Toronto with birthdays from January 1st onward did not have to pay the $60. Those with birthdays in 2010 prior to January 1, 2011 were still required to pay the PVT. I campaigned on the promise to remove this tax as soon as possible. This was the earliest date that we could implement the change. Rather than waiting, I believed that putting $64 million dollars back in taxpayers' pockets in the 2011 year would stimulate the economy and benefit all.
I have requested that Municipal Licensing and Standards staff add your request for the refund of the 2008 and 2009 PVT to the Taxicab Industry Review for consideration. The Taxicab Industry Review will be presented to the Licensing and Standards Committee for consideration upon its completion. At this point a decision will be made by the Committee members based on the recommendations of staff. Yours truly, Mayor Rob Ford City of Toronto
28 February 2012 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Toronto Ontario As per our recent discussions, I have completed my investigation as to where the City of Toronto stands in regards to being non-compliant with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O.2005, c11 (A.O.D.A.) Although I broadened my scope into other areas where I found the City not compliant as well, I will reserve my comments strictly to the non-compliance of the Act by the Toronto taxi industry. I believe it is fairly common knowledge that the disabled communities throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada as well have not received the mandate of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of Equality Rights. That maybe changing as the Province of Ontario has enacted recent legislation that appears to have teeth that will assist these disabled communities to achieve those guaranteed rights. The City of Toronto government has made positive improvements to accommodate the physically challenged community as far as the public sector is concerned. In the Toronto taxi industry we have a wheel trans service, basic taxi courses, refresher courses and an added day of education for wheel trans drivers. These programs educate our membership to understand and assist the physically disabled community. Where the Citys efforts lack is in enacting programs and providing literature addressing the needs of the sight-impaired community. I have talked with Ms. Donna Jodhan who is the president of a Canadian non-profit organization called the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians. She concurs that the City of Toronto is in violation of the Act for sight-impaired persons as far as the citys taxi industry is concerned especially since the date for compliance was 1 January 2012. In my opinion, the Citys lack of response to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c32 (O.D.A.) that then governed public sector responsibilities to all disabled citizens in the Province of Ontario prior to the present Act, also violated many of the disabled communities rights as well. I find Ms. Jodhans community in many ways parallels the members of the Toronto taxi industry in their lack of involvement, other than the odd individual, with government at any level. As a body, they do little to follow up on enacted and/or purposed legislation. They are under a false impression that since there is or might be a law put in place to address their needs and requirements, it just automatically gets done. They fail to realize that government at any level rarely goes out in the field to ensure the laws are being adhered and take little if any action to make sure they will be followed in the future, unless of course it is to their benefit to do so. 1
I have been informed by the Ministry that the new Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c11 will have a new approach with Ontario government members actually going out in the field to ensure the Act is being adhered to. Non-compliance could see $50,000 per day in fines levied. This Act differs from the previous Act, Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c32 in the fact that it involves not just the public sector of our community but the private sector as well. I believe the Province will phase out the old Act of 2001 as it duplicates much of the legislation contained in the new Act. The City of Toronto as well as all other communities that operate or allow operation of a taxicab service in Ontario are legally bound to the new Act but as of this date, most have not put all the required programs in place to make them compliant. Mandated taxicab compliance is stated in Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c11 under Ontario Regulation 191/11, Part IV Transportation Standards Definitions Section 33. In this part taxicab means a motor vehicle as defined in the Highway Traffic Act, other than a car pool vehicle having a seating capacity of not more than six persons, exclusive of the driver, hired for one specific trip for the transportation exclusively of one person or group of persons, one fare or charge only being collected or made for the trip and that is licensed as a taxicab by a municipality; (taxi) Taxicab compliance is also mandated by the Act under Ontario Regulation 429/07, Accessibility Standards for Customer Service, Schedule 2, Broader Public Sector, Section 5 states every public transportation organization in Ontario, including any municipally operated transportation services for persons with disabilities, that provides services for which a fare is charged for transporting the public by vehicles that are operated, ss. iii under an agreement between a municipality and a person, firm, corporation or transit or transportation commission or authority. So what has the City of Toronto done to be compliant to the Act for the sight-impaired community? They held taxi industry workshops last year where the following items were discussed. Moving the taxicab number from the front door to the rear door. Make the taxicab number raised so it could be read by touch. Institute a standardized font to be used for the taxicab number. On the inside of both rear doors and in a consistent place affix the taxicab number in Braille. Affix a Braille tariff card in a constant place in the rear of the taxicab for easy access for the sight impaired-passenger. Due to the variety of vehicles used as taxicabs in the City of Toronto, and available space varies vehicle to vehicle, no specific recommendation was reached as to where to put the Braille tariff card. Look into the possibility of taxicabs requiring a talking meter.
It was also suggested that to become compliant with the Act, a final decision by the City of Toronto should be forthcoming by no later than December 2011 and be implemented by the first mandated taxicab DOT inspections in January 2012. To this date, there is not one recommendation implemented. 2
To write this legislation and bring both the private and public sectors under the same umbrella was a daunting task and would take years to achieve. The Act itself was finalized in 2005 and its subsequent regulations came into effect in 2007 and 2011 so it wasnt a secret that the compliance date of 1January 2012 was coming. The Province through the Ministry of Community and Social Services has ran numerous workshops and on-line surveys and in 2010 made a concentrated effort to reach out to both the private and public sectors looking for input before finalizing the implementation date of the Act and its regulations. If either of the sectors needs information and/or assistance on how to achieve compliance to the Act, it is available through the Ministry. In case a member of the Toronto taxi industry, a member of any other municipal taxi industry or a member of any of the disabled communities wishes to further check out a municipalitys responsibilities in the area of taxicab servicing under the Act or other public and/or private sector responsibilities, I have furnished, in an added attachment, all contact information for you to pursue those enquiries. I would suggest your best reference to attain the information you seek is to contact the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario that is listed on the contact sheet. Well fellow members, here we are again with the City of Toronto in violation of statute. Nothing new you say? You would be correct. Although it is a remote possibility, the driver or owner of a taxicab could receive a ticket of violation for noncompliance to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c11 and its applicable Ontario Regulations. To become compliant to the Act, possible additions maybe required to be added to the interior and/or exterior of the taxi. Our taxi licensing by-law prohibits a taxi driver or owner from adding anything to a taxicab in regards to customer servicing without city councils permission. If approved, it then would be sent to licensing services, the regulator of the taxi industry for implementation. Our members would like to bring to the Ministrys attention that no approval has been forthcoming from the City as of this letter and any violation for non-compliance of the Act in our industry should be directed towards the City of Toronto, not the individual taxi driver or owner. Hopefully until the City does become compliant in our industry, our members will not face a ticketing situation but they very well may have to answer some questions about the non-compliance from their sight-impaired clientele and it is my hope that this report will assist them in that discussion if it ever does come about.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley 3
Ministry of Community and Social Services

80 Grosvenor Street Hepburn Block 6th Floor Toronto Ontario M7A 1E9 Phone: 416-323-5666 Toll Free: 1-888-789-4199 Email: accessibility@css.gov.on.ca.
Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Part of Ministry Dealing With Disability Act

Phone 1-866-515-2025 Email: accessibility@ontario.ca
Links
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001,c32 (O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01o32_e.htm Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c 11 (A.O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm Ontario Regulation 191/11 Definitions Section 33 Scroll Down to Taxicab http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1 Ontario Regulation 429/07 Schedule 2 Section 5 http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1
17 February 2012 Honourable Deborah Matthews Ministry of health and Long-Term care 10th Floor, Hepburn Block 80 Grosvenor Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2C4 Dear Minister Matthews, I am writing on behalf of the approximately 12,000 members of the Toronto taxi industry to inform you that the City of Toronto is seriously jeopardizing all of our taxi drivers health while in their workplace. About one year ago, the City of Toronto dramatically changed their idling by-law in regards to vehicles and boats. The old guidelines of being able to idle your vehicle or boat when temperatures were either below 5c or above 27c was abolished and replaced with the ability to idle for no more than one minute. It is my understanding that the Province of Ontario has strict laws for the health and safety of all Ontario workers while in their workplace. Those statutes are being violated by the City of Toronto. It is inappropriate and potentially dangerous to think that a taxi driver has to work in extreme weather conditions without protection. I have tried repeatedly by emails and phone calls to have the City of Toronto write an exemption to their by-law in regards to our drivers but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. It is my opinion that you and your Ministry need to intervene at your earliest convenience to have this wrong reversed. Mr. Roy Ambury taximagazine@yahoo.ca who is a friend and colleague of mine that drives a taxi in Kingston Ontario, informed me that his city is about to follow suit with a similar idling by-law putting their taxi drivers health in jeopardy as well. Before this spreads throughout the Province, I am requesting that this be stopped before a serious illness befalls a taxi driver in Ontario. I remain,
Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Toronto, Ontario Dear John, After almost 5 decades of relative obscurity in commenting on the daily problems facing Toronto taxi drivers and operators, some Toronto taxi brokerages now feel this is the appropriate time to weigh in and rather heavily I might add, as to what Toronto city hall should do to resolve those concerns. This raises a rather large red flag to me and I would like my fellow taxi drivers and operators to consider the following and then come to their own conclusions. There is one thing you can be sure of. If our drivers and operators believe that the brokerages actually care about their financial well-being, they are either unfamiliar with the issues or incredibly nave. Brokerages are no different than any other business or the City of Toronto for that matter in the fact that their main objective is to extract from our members as many dollars as possible in order to maximize their profits or in the case of the City, their budgetary requirements. The City of Toronto licenses taxi brokerages as call centres. They are allowed to receive calls from patrons, and then dispatch those calls to their drivers and brokers as set down by their company protocols. But is that all that brokerages are involved in? I believe the following will enlighten our membership as to what Toronto taxi brokerages are additionally involved in and it brings into question the legality of their actions. For brokerages to take advantage of additional business opportunities that are available in the taxi industry, they had to find a way around the restrictions of their business license. They came up with what they believe is a clever way to circumvent those licenses rules and regulations and that is to form corporations and/or limited companies under a different name than the brokerage and tap into those available business prospects. For example, if you see the cheques made out to standard license owners who lease their plates to a brokerage, it is usually in the corporate or limited companies name not the brokerages name. Considering the limited or corporate company is named as a brokerage subsidiary or the brokerage name is actually named as part of the limited company or corporation, it shows a direct correlation between both identities in one way or another. Due to this direct link whether legal or otherwise, it clearly shows that Toronto taxi brokerages are directly or through their subsidiary companies involved in and profiting from the day-to-day business operations of the taxis within their brokerage other than being a call centre thus violating their Toronto brokerage business license parameters. The following will point out some of the activities brokerages are involved in on a daily basis that I believe are not covered by their business license. 1
15 February 2012
All brokerages are involved in one or a combination of all of the following: Own and operate taxis through subsidiary companies and either lease the license or operate a cash-in garage. If you wish to lease a standard plate through a brokerage or their agent, they make you keep it in their brokerage. Mandate you insure your taxi with one singular insurance company that deals with their brokerage. If you require a debit and credit terminal you must take the one they supply and in one instance it was brought to my attention that one particular brokerage will charge you for the machine whether you use it or not. Force drivers to pay an association fee that they initiate. If pager required, must take the one supplied by the brokerage. Force drivers to accept discounted corporate charges. Give senior discounts from the drivers earnings, no brokerage assistance. Charge a percentage discount on corporate charges if cashed in before 45 to 60 days has elapsed. Charge percentage discounts on debit and credit transactions.
So where has the MLS been for all of these years? Why have they allowed these brokerages to operate with impunity and without fear of reprisal from any section of city government? Perhaps the answer lays in the fact the City of Toronto, who daily violates our taxi by-law, has also violated a program that involves Toronto taxi brokerages. That program is the W plate program. This program was established to service the physically challenged portion of our community. The by-law specifically states that whomever is issued one of these licenses must actually drive the vehicle for a minimum of 36 hours per week and is allowed to have a second driver. Due to the fact that the City thought there were not enough of these licenses on the road and couldnt find drivers to work in the program, they issued I believe 25 to 30 of these licenses to taxi brokerages. The owner/operator of the brokerage is not driving these vehicles thus violating the boundaries of the W plate program showing again the Citys disregard for what is contained within the taxi by-law. Perhaps the answer to the Citys lack of action is the fact they themselves are also flagrantly violating the by-law therefore turning a blind eye to what the brokerages are doing. Regardless, you cannot violate the by-law to suit your own purpose whether you are a taxi brokerage or the City of Toronto but that is what is happening and there has not been any accountability for either party. Some Toronto taxi brokerages and various industry groups appear to have Ms. Gail Souter as their spokesperson who recently brought forward a number of suggestive changes that she and her fellow brokerage operators and industry groups feel is their obligation to do. Really! I wonder where that resolve has been for the past 40 to 50 years in regards to brokerage participation? I caution city hall and all taxi drivers and operators to carefully scrutinize any suggestions that come from brokerages because for the most part, they will be self-serving.
As previously shown, the brokerages are directly involved in and profiting from the day-today business of the taxi itself thus violating the requirements of their business license. Why should anything they bring forward be considered? They are not supposed to be involved in the business of the taxi driver, Ambassador operator or standard plate owner and/or operator therefore suggestions for change regarding these groups must come from them, the people who will be directly affected and that does not include the brokerage operators. The brokerages primary involvement in the upcoming reformation meetings is to see all Ambassador taxis changed into standard licenses, which I believe they support for no other reason than to guarantee their ongoing profits from their brokers and drivers. To support this conversion appears on the surface, a rather strange position for them to be pushing when you consider the below listed points other than the fact they would be losing several millions of dollars in revenues if the City doesnt follow through with their recommended changes for the Ambassador taxi program. City halls own staff report in 1998 did not recommend the Ambassador taxi program to be enacted for a number of reasons. The program is in direct contradiction to the established taxi per capita formula for taxi license issuing. The L&S Committee refused to do an economic impact study because they knew the results would support the staff report. The City eventually issued 1,400 Ambassador licenses without showing a need. Only two councillors, Howard Moscoe and Denzil Minnan-Wong, pushed through the program. The other L&S Committee members admitted they had no idea what they were doing in support of the program and only hoped it was the right thing to do. Council rubber-stamped the Committees recommendation to approve the program without knowing what it was all about. We have members living in every riding in the City and all councillors are duty bound to properly represent their constituents, which did not happen on this issue. Brought incredible financial hardship to our taxi drivers.
Although many of you were not at the 1998 reformation meetings and therefore did not hear some of the comments that came from them, here is one that might interest you. Ms. Gail Souter of Beck taxi stated that she was against the Ambassador program and would under no circumstances let them into her brokerage. How many Ambassador operators are now in Beck taxi, 2 or 3 hundred perhaps? Not only are we subjected to superfluous brokerage comments, now we have their employees weighing in as well. Ms. Kristine Hubbard, the office manager for Beck taxi and in case you do not know, Don and Gail Souters bouncing baby girl, also supports the conversion of the Ambassador plates to standard plates. I am challenging Ms. Hubbard and all taxi brokerage operators to waive your salaries for one year and drive a taxi from a cash-in garage to earn your living regardless of whether the Ambassador taxis are converted or not. After you pay your $80 to $110 daily shift premiums and fuel costs, you will find it necessary to work 16 to 20 hours per day and 7 days a week to make just enough to survive. After the one year, I wonder whether you still would support the conversion, which also could include up to 1,400 additional drivers on those converted plates that have to be sustained in an industry that already cannot financially maintain its present membership. 3
One suggestion from the brokerage faithful is not to convert the Ambassador licenses all at once but perhaps over a 2 to 4 year period. A wonderful idea that will ensure the financial security for the brokerages but as usual it doesnt do a thing for the drivers monetary needs. The more I speak to drivers, bureaucrats and politicians, it has become apparent that the majority do not understand the whole picture about taxi licensing and how a per capita formula is achieved. I am hopeful the following explanation will be of some assistance. When a jurisdiction wants to enter into establishing a taxi industry, their goal is to make certain that citizens receive a professional and competent taxi service while giving the taxi driver a reasonable opportunity to earn a living. They achieve this by doing an economic impact study as well as consider population in and around the jurisdiction, visitation, conventions and other special events that may come to their area. When all this is compiled they then enter into a taxi per capita formula. This formula reflects required taxi usage on a daily, weekly, monthly and annual basis. Most jurisdictions formulas reflect 1 taxi per 800 to 1200 people. This formula is saying that on the average, 1 taxi can take care of the taxi needs of that number of people as obviously they all dont take taxis or the ones that do dont they take them every day. The City of Toronto had a per capita formula of 1 taxi per 850, which was a reasonable and acceptable formula that met the needs of the consumer and gave our drivers a reasonable opportunity to earn their living. Through the 1970s, 80s and 90s the City of Toronto disregarded their own formula and started issuing standard licenses arbitrarily without showing a need thus violating their own licensing issuing formula. By 1996 when the last standard license was issued, there were already more taxis in Toronto then was required. In 1998 at the insistence of Councillors Moscoe and Denzil Minnan-Wong, the Ambassador program began and eventually 1,400 additional taxis hit the streets saturating an industry that already had too many taxis on the road. This brought our fleet size to 4,880 making their prior and disregarded per capita formula of 1 per 850 now 1 per 536, which is nearly half of most jurisdictions. If you consider the 750 Toronto liveries, 750 GTAA taxis and limousine and the approximate 1,000 illegals that pick up clients in our city daily, the per capita formula is now approximately 1 per 268 or 3 to 4 times lower than any other jurisdiction thus making the taxi drivers ability to earn a living nearly impossible. In 1961 the population of the City of Toronto was 1,620,861 and at the end of 2011 it now is 2,716,000 a difference of 1,095,139. If you wish to regain the original formula of 1 taxi per 850 you have two choices. One is to let the population increase without issuing more plates until it reaches the formulas limitations. That means our population would have to exceed just over 4,000,000, which requires an increase in population of approximately 1,300,000. Seeing as it took 50 years to increase our population from 1961 figures to present, you can see it will take between 50 and 75 more years for this to be achieved, which will put our present and future taxi drivers into financial bondage for all those years. The second is to grandfather out the Ambassador city owned taxis, which would leave us with the original 3,480 standard licensed taxis that existed prior to this program being enacted. If you divide 3,480 into the present population of 2,716,000, you now would have a per capita formula of 1 per 780, which is a responsible one giving adequate service to our consumers while giving the driver an opportunity to earn a living. So as you can see, the
brokerages idea of taking 3 to 4 years to turn all of the Ambassador taxis into standard ones is rather self-serving as it solidifies a healthy living for them without one iota of consideration for what it will do to taxi drivers in regards to their ability to earn a living to support themselves and their families over the next 50 to 75 years. In conclusion, I would like to point out that for the past 40 years that I have dealt with the City of Toronto on taxi industry issues, history has always repeated itself. When all is said and done, the City has and I believe always will do what they want when they want regardless of whether it is right or wrong, legal or otherwise. If our members believe it will in the long run be any different this time, you are about to be brutally disappointed. Our industry will continue to pay one of the highest licensing fees in the world while the drivers take home pay will continue in a downward spiral. The City of Toronto has spent a great deal of time and effort through meetings and legislation to divide and conquer our membership and because of that, the City has been successful in diverting a collective industry approach to our issues. Without that group methodology, our industry will never achieve a successful conclusion to any of our outstanding or future trepidations. If you are seeking justice for your concerns, you rarely find it in government. I have been active in all levels of government for about 50 years now and the one thing that I have observed and seen first hand put to the test is that for a campaign donation or picking up the costs for an inexpensive summertime barbeque, you can obtain or have removed any and all legislation that will benefit your cause. Yes Virginia, there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor. To challenge any level of governments decisions is a costly proposition that few can afford and there in lays the key to their success. It requires you to use your own money to initiate a court action and even if you win you will not be able to recover your entire costs. After all is said and done, you may or may not receive the justice you probably deserve and to add insult to injury, the government is using your tax dollars to fight what is most likely your entitlement.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley

I remain,
Gerald H. Manley 3


Links
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001,c32 (O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01o32_e.htm
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c 11 (A.O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm
Ontario Regulation 191/11 Definitions Section 33 Scroll Down to Taxicab http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1
Ontario Regulation 429/07 Schedule 2 Section 5 http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1

Gerald H. Manley Taxi Owner, Plate# 416 105 Rowena Drive, Apt. 405 Toronto, Ontario M3A 1R2
17 December 2011 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Dear John, Mysteriously missing from the Citys agenda list at the meeting on December 8, 2011 and not discussed at all at any table I am aware of was the present cleanliness and mechanical condition of Toronto taxis as well as the current level of professionalism of the Citys licensed taxi drivers and owners. If anyone feels the adoption of certain recommendations in this area that came from the 1998 reformation meetings solved these issues, they are sadly mistaken. There is not a day goes by that I and many other industry professionals that care do not observe dirty cars inside and out that are, shall we say less than mechanically fit as well. It appears ludicrous that the City treats fleet operated cars with the same regulations and requirements as an independent owner/operator. Most fleet taxis or leased taxi plates operate on a 24 hour-7day a week schedule and put on two hundred thousand plus kilometers on those taxis annually while the independent would do less than half of that. Yet each is inspected twice a year. Does the City really feel that allowing some taxis to put on in excess of one hundred thousand kilometers in a six-month period without inspection is prudent? Is the City really that naive to believe these operators keep their taxis mechanically fit or clean during that six-month period? As a matter of public safety, those inspections must be increased back to where they once were and that was quarterly not semi annually. Along with the dirty and mechanically unfit taxi complaints are the myriads of customer complaints about rude drivers, hygiene issues, cannot reasonably communicate in English, do not know where they are going and in some cases the destination is a major street and/or intersection, do not know the location of major points of interest in the city, are unaware of major events coming up in the city, continually talk on the phone during the trip thus disregarding a provincial statute, loud ethnic radio music, do not accept all modes of payment and the list goes on and on. I remember Councillor Howard Moscoe telling me he called for a taxi at his home one morning to go to city hall and when the driver arrived he asked where city hall was and how to get there and you really expect us to believe all of the drivers coming out of the taxi school actually pass the course? The City staff and Councillors that sit on the L&S Committee have been made aware of these problems and in most cases close a blind eye. They usually respond that because they dont receive many consumer complaints in these areas, there cannot be as big of a problem as we are portraying. They do not consider that the consumer for the most part would not report the drivers, as they do not want them to get into trouble and they fear reprisals from some of these drivers if their name was given as the complainant.
For many years I have used a saying in some of my reports and I quote Until the City of Toronto stops using its taxi industry as a social employment welfare net, the citys taxi industry will never achieve success in the area of business or customer service. I am not the originator of that saying, it was Dr. Marion Joppe. I believe we are very fortunate to have Dr. Joppe as a member of our community. Dr. Joppe received Masters and Doctorate degrees from the Universite de Droit, dEconomie et des Sciences dAix-Marseille III (France) as well as an undergraduate degree from the University of Waterloos Recreation and Leisure Studies program specializing in government intervention in tourism while studying the approach of different political systems and countries. Dr. Joppe has gained a broad scope of tourism industry experience in both the private and public sectors holding many senior positions in this field with the Government of Ontario, the OECD, financial institutions as well as tour operators. She presently teaches courses at Ryerson University mjoppe@ryerson.ca as well as being an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of Guelph mjoppe@uoguelph.ca and although I do not know where she finds the time, she also serves on a number of professional and trade associations. Why do I mention all of this? The Board of Trade contracted Dr. Joppe in 1996/97 to work on the Toronto taxicab issue and she submitted her final report in 1997. I believe her conclusions would be as pertinent today as they were in 1997 and seeing as the L&S Committee are always asking for Toronto Travel & Tourism input into taxi issues as we are linked in the area of customer service in relation to servicing tourists, I would strongly suggest you contact Dr. Joppe and ask for her input as well as read her conclusions of 1997 as stated in her report to the Board of Trade. Here is a top notch professional in her field that lives in our community and really understood our industry issues as well as having no axe to grind. As the City is always looking for external input to resolve taxi industry issues, it would be a travesty if Dr. Joppe were not consulted. I have recently contacted Dr. Joppe and I have attached those emails to this submission and noted her comments are certainly spot on. After the holiday season, Dr. Joppe is sending me a copy of her final report of 1997, in email form I hope, as I would like to add it to my files. I was made aware of some of her comments back in those years and I thought her recommendations should have been considered in the 1998 reformation meetings but as she eloquently put it, Councillor Howard Moscoe highjacked the agenda and Toronto ended up with the Ambassador program. One of the specific observations she made was that the City of Toronto in 1997 had 1,000 too many taxis so I am wondering what she now thinks? Since that time the City has arbitrarily added an additional 1,400 taxis without showing any need or adhering to any licensing issuing formula and if converted to standard licenses as some would like to see, it could add up to an additional 1,400 more taxi drivers on Toronto streets. I remain.
Gerald H. Manley
Gerald H. Manley
29 December 2012 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Dear John, In recent weeks and at the December 8, 2011 major stakeholders meeting, there has been a renewed interest in our members seeking government Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) coverage while driving their taxis. The WSIB is part of the Ontario Ministry of Labour and over the past 25 years or so, I have had several meetings with this Ministry in an attempt to have the government mandate taxi driver workplace safety throughout the Province and part of those talks were about WSIB coverage for all Ontario taxi drivers. I am sending this letter to you with the idea that perhaps through an article in taxi news, you could inform our membership what came out of my efforts and to attempt to educate them what may or may not occur in their quest for this workplace insurance coverage. In 2009 the Occupational Health & Safety Amendment Act (Violence & Harassment in the Workplace 2009) came into being. Section 71 of this Act deals with safety in our industry. The problem with the section was that the Ministry did not enact it at this time hoping that all jurisdictions would voluntarily enter into taxi driver workplace safety programs but if not, they would seek an order by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to enact the section thus legally mandating all jurisdictions operating a taxi industry to begin the taxi safety programs. Most areas in Ontario have not entered into a taxi workplace safety initiative therefore it is overdue to enact the section. If WSIB were to be sought and mandated in our industry this must be the first step as without it would be basically putting the horse before the cart. Our members must first realize that this coverage has always been available to them on an independent basis but in my opinion, cost prohibitive. The Ministry has informed me that effective January 1, 2012, it would cost $4.99 per $100 gross earning power or about 5% or your total earning capabilities to attain coverage, totally out of reach for a taxi driver. Yes, group coverage would be cheaper but the question is, how much cheaper and would this still be out of reach for taxi drivers across the Province? I do caution our members to approach this very carefully. It was recently reported that the WSIB is many of millions of dollars in the hole and we must make sure that the Province is not trying to make up some of their financial short falls through our industry like the City of Toronto uses us as a licensing cash cow. It is estimated that 30% of all Ontario workers are without this coverage so the Province, due to its financial hardships will be no doubt trying to tap into all avenues to recoup those dollars.
They have started this process by recently mandating many sectors of the construction business to have WSIB coverage so it is just a matter of time before we come up in their radar screen. Seeing as the legislation is already there, it only takes a stroke of the pen and we will be mandated as well. Our provincial government knows very little on how our industry works and it would require extensive education to bring them up to speed on our industry before any program should be enacted. During one of the meetings a senior WSIB member stated, to assess premiums it would require taxi drivers to submit their T4 earning slips. He had no knowledge that we are not employees but self-employed therefore do not receive T4 slips. It also started a discussion on how we would be categorized because at that time WSIB were basically dealing with an employer employee mindset. Would taxi drivers be dedicated contractors? Non-dedicated contractors? Self-employed? I informed them that we have been viewed in these and a number of other ways when it comes to employment status depending on who is dealing with us and what they are seeking. This of course would have to be resolved. The Ministry must be made to realize we are not getting cheques weekly, bi-weekly or monthly as the vast majority of people they cover do. There is not a constant in our earning capabilities form day to day therefore a responsible premium must reflect this along with what situations would a taxi driver make claim. Comparing to most other vocations in their system, it is my belief our claims would be much less than most other workers therefore we should not be categorized in their general scope of thought and that a new reflective way of setting reasonable premiums should be sought. There are numerous other issues that would have to be tabled and resolved before the Ontario taxi industry could possibly be brought into the fold of the WSIB. Should our membership be entitled to this coverage? Is it attainable? Yes to both questions and with the recent changes, I believe it is and we are. But the big red flag that appears to me, Is it affordable? That will have to be negotiated and resolved at the bargaining table with the Province so make sure you are prepared and know your facts before sitting down as although the issue is the same, how you get there will be entirely different as our members are looking for responsible and attainable coverage while government as usual will be looking only at the dollars that can be made. I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
(05/03/2012) taxireview - Toronto Taxi Major Stakeholders Meetings
Seite 1
From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: To All,
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "Taxi News" <john@taxinews.com> "ML&S Manager Policy & Planning Services Mr. Rudi Czekalla" <rczekal@tor... 12/11/2011 11:21 AM Toronto Taxi Major Stakeholders Meetings 11Dec11 Taxi News Letter On 8Dec11 Industry Meeting.doc
I have attached an open letter outlining our initial and upcoming meetings on this subject matter. I am requesting that all city councillors and the mayor's office take a pro-active position on this issue. I respect the fact that the mayor and councillors cannot possibly be involved in all matters coming from committee but this is a unique case. For almost five decades now council has rubber stamped recommendations coming from the L&S Committee without realizing the harm it has inflicted on the Toronto taxi industry and the patrons they service. It is time for you to stop the carnage and truly represent the industry members as well as all taxi users who live in each and every riding in this city. We need your help and expertise in resolving numerous outstanding concerns that are occurring daily in the Toronto taxi industry. Get involved !!!!! Talk to our industry members that live in your ridings as well as the taxi using public so that when the eventual recommendations for change in the city's taxi industry reach city council to be adopted, you will take a serious look at the report from an educated perspective thus stopping the rubber stamping process that has been occurring in our industry for too many years. Gerry Manley 105 Rowena Drive, Suite 405 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3A 1R2 Tel: (416) 948-1921 Fax: (416) 441-9593 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Web Site: www.taxidriversafety.net
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Bill #26 Savings & Restructuring Act (1996)
From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca> 4/30/2012 5:04 PM Bill #26 Savings & Restructuring Act (1996) 28Aug06 Minister Gerretsen's Guarantee No Provincial Interference.pdf; 1978 Bill 195 and 173 Point of Pick Up Legislation.pdf
Dear Tracey, Here is a question I have for you that so far, no one at City Hall or the Province has been able to answer. When the last reformation was completed and implemented in 1998, it could not be done until the Province under this Act, gave its permission, which it eventually did. Since that time the Toronto Act (2006) has come into being and I am wondering whether the City still has to get the Province's permission to make changes after this reformation completes or does the powers in the Toronto Act (2006) negate the need of provincial approval. Because I am into my, hmmmmm refresher course requirements, a letter to follow, I may not be able to attend the meetings you have scheduled for issues outside the City's control and that is another reason in mentioning the Toronto Act (2006) in regard to the Airport Exemption. Yes, any City bylaw is trumped by the Provincial Statute but the City has never formally on behalf of our entire membership made enquiries to or asked the Premier for a meeting with the Mayor, L&S Committee Chair, Executive Director of MLS and industry members to discuss this most serious issue, which we would like to have, that has cost our members around one and a half billion dollars in lost revenues in very unfair legislation. It is also very important from the City's perspective as it violates the Province's promise that the City is alleged to be a mature and responsible government capable of handling all of their own affairs. They interceded by putting the Airport Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) after they had promised not to and initially left it out. So as you can see, there are steps that can be taken by the City on issues that are out of their jurisdiction to at least try to get a fair and level playing field for all. The present Attorney General for the Province of Ontario is the Honourable John Gerretsen, who at the time the Toronto Act (2006) was written and enacted was the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing. His P/A at the time was the Honourable Brad Duguid, an ex City of Toronto councillor who sat on the L&S Committee who with Minister Gerretsen made those promises on behalf of the present sitting government to leave the Airport Exemption out of the Toronto Act (2006). I have included his letter to me on the subject matter. To further point out the unfairness of this legislation, I have also included the Province's guidelines for drop off and pick up by taxis in the Province, which the Airport Exemption also violates. It seems more than strange that the province has legislated laws regarding a federal jurisdiction in three separate pieces of legislation. One is the Municipal Act of Ontario, Toronto Act (2006) and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, so as you can see there are plenty of openings for the City to go to the province and fight this injustice on behalf of our membership. I sat on a committee from 2002 to 2006 with Mr. Hillel Gudes and Mr. Andy Reti to achieve the Airport Exemption being left out of the Toronto Act (2006) until the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Minister Watson arbitrarily wrote the Airport Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) without holding any major stakeholders meetings thus violating what they say cities and municipalities must do before legislation can be enacted. You can see there is more than enough data that can be brought forward by the City to the Province to have this injustice against our membership removed without telling us you have no authorities to do anything about this senior statute issue. Get us the meeting as I personally would like to sit at a table and have Premier McGuinty look our members in the eye and tall us why he allowed Minister Watson to do this after his government had promised us it would not be put into the Toronto Act (2006) through both Minister Gerretsen and Minister Duguid.
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 1
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 3 of 3

05/17/2012
Page 1 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 3 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 2
From: To:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: 3/9/2012 8:03 PM Subject: Taxi Reformation Meetings CC: City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, ML&S Director Of Licensing Services Bruce Robertson <brobert1@toronto.ca>, ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, Taxi News <john@taxinews.com>
Councillor Palacio, Attending the city hall meeting today, it has become rather obvious that your words of a clear and transparent review are just that, words. It is common knowledge that private meetings with Staff and Councillors have already occurred. What is transparent about that? No private audiences on any industry issue should have been granted prior to these meetings as the greater majority of the industry was not made privy as to what those discussions were all about. The industry was promised meetings for each separate group as it will be confrontational on some points for us to meet all together. A meeting at the end of the review with representatives from each group could then be held to see if there is any common ground for the entire industry to bring forward their points. Other than taxi drivers, that promise has been broken. I have spent a great deal of personal time to research, write and bring forward industry issues for this review that also included some viable solutions to resolve them with the hope this might be the time the City will finally do the right thing. Today certainly showed me how foolish that idea was and how naive I was to believe that actually might happen. In my opinion, this was a waste of my time and that time should have been put to better use. As well as having a great disappointment on how City hall has conducted itself so far at these meeting, I am just as disappointed in the lack of industry involvement. Today there were maybe 45 or 50 industry members attending out of 12,000? We had more staff at this meeting than members. I don't believe that our membership deserves the hard work and time put in by a few of their fellow members trying to make this industry better when they do not want to spend one-second of time or one-penny of personal resources to help. I noted on Consultation 1 Planning Phase Summary, there was little done in regard to planning. The power point presentation went right into industry issues of yours and staff's choice, not the choice of all of our members. Where in this particular consultation, 9 March 2012 did it say we were going to discuss any issue? It was supposed to be a review of information gathered in the planning stage and discussion of how the review will be conducted, not to discuss any issue at this particular meeting. The City again going out of format and proceeding with what they want done. It is very easy to talk the talk but a lot harder to walk the walk. Do you not think you should stick to what you tell us is going to occur at each particular meeting rather than arbitrarily changing it? Also the guarantee of being able to discuss any issue at any meeting did not come to fruition. The facilitator at our table and three other tables I checked believed as I did, we were supposed to stick to the two points described on the power point presentation and when other issues were raised we were asked to stick with the two points of the power point presentation. Another broken promise by the City. If you had taken the time to really seek industry input I am confident you would find that the Ambassador issue might not be the number one issue. Considering we have over 10,000 taxi drivers, 3,480 standard plate owners along with Accessible operators, I believe there would be other issues we feel are even more important than the Ambassador issue not withstanding it is important.This meeting was nothing more than a repeat of the December 11 meeting. The City comes to a meeting with its own agenda at both meetings where the meetings were supposedly being held to format an agenda. I have sent this email to the taxi review requesting my name be taken off the meeting dates I requested as it rather obvious the City will do what they want when they want and little to no consideration will be given to industry members when all is said and done. By me attending these meetings so far is shame on you for not sticking to your own agenda formats and breaking your promises, but for me to attend any more meetings knowing you will continue on in the same manner would be shame on me and I will assure you that will not occur. Although I feel all my hard work will fall on deaf ears in the long-term, you may use my input in any manner you deem is appropriate. I certainly will monitor what occurs and will be looking at all the final resolves and if I feel there has not been a fairness given to all industry members then I will seek that justice in other areas.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings _ Standard Taxi Owners
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca> 3/5/2012 6:10 PM Taxi Reformation Meetings _ Standard Taxi Owners ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, ML&S Director Of Licensing Services Bruce Robertson <brobert1@toronto.ca>, Taxi News <john@taxinews.com>, taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Attachments: 2012 Standard Plate Owners Agenda re Major Stakeholders Meetings.doc
Councillor Palacio, Prior to the actual start of the reformation meetings, all industry members were assured by both politicians and bureaucrats alike that when the meetings began, individual meetings would be set up for each individual group to ascertain what their issues were and to get input on how to resolve them. The Consultation meeting schedule does not reflect that promise. There are only 2 meetings set aside for taxi drivers and no meetings for standard taxi owners, ambassador owners or "W" plate operators. All of the aforementioned groups believe it is of paramount importance that each individual group be given their own time as to do otherwise would almost assuredly lead to at the very least, verbal confrontation as there are wide differences in some of the issues that need discussion. Perhaps at the end of the individual meetings you might find it beneficial to have representatives from each group meet and see if there is any common gerund on issues that can be brought forward on behalf of the entire industry. Over the past several days I have taken the time to contact numerous people in the groups I mentioned and they all agree that the individual meetings are mandatory if their point of view is to be heard. I have attached an Agenda that reflects what the standard plate owners and operators would like to see discussed and I am sure it parallels what the other groups that have yet to be given the required meetings would want to discuss as well. We feel that 2 meetings for each group, as set up for the drivers, is necessary and perhaps the 2 meetings could be held as you have done with some of the other groups, being one A.M. And one P.M.meeting on the same day. In this way perhaps my suggested agenda could be split in to those 2 meetings with time left over in the second meeting to discuss other issues that are not included but maybe of importance to a member in each group. I will bring this idea and my agenda recommendations forward at the 9 March 2012 meeting for consideration. Our groups feel that this is the only way to go to get all the data out in the open without the confrontation that would occur if everyone is in the same room at the same time with entirely different ideas on how to fix certain issues.
05/17/2012
(05/17/2012) taxireview - Your Submissions
Seite 1
From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: Taxi Review,
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio... 3/1/2012 7:53 PM Your Submissions 1March12 Mayor Ford Letter On PVT.docx
Thank you for your response. My taxi driver enquiry was spurred on by Toronto Municipal Code Licensing Article VIII owners and drivers of Cabs 545-130 definitions "As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated - Driver - A driver of a cab who is licensed as such or required to be licensed as such under this chapter, "And includes an owner who drives a cab." I would strongly suggest that to avoid confrontation that you also hold separate meetings for all individual groups as on some points we are far apart and confrontation would be inevitable. Little will be accomplished if we are all in the same major stakeholder's meeting rooms at the same time discussing those issues. Perhaps after the initial individual meetings another meeting could be facilitated to have representation from all of the groups to meet and see if there is common ground that a unified approach could be achieved to bring forward to staff, committee and council. I will not be able to attend the 1 May 2012 meeting, which by the way for your information is not personal but "Private Vehicle Tax" as I have to attend the mandated refresher course but have submitted enough documentation to prove the city has admitted they were wrong in assessing this tax to our owners as Mayor Miller's regime has already reimbursed one year of the taxi, 2010 and the 2008 and 2009 monies should also follow. I have included an email from the Mayor Ford about his decision to have this discussed at the reformation meetings although I do not understand what discussion is needed when it has already been accepted as being wrong from Toronto Council. I am sure the City will be hearing from the Ministry of Community and Social Services on the accessibility for disabled citizens issue within a week or so as I sent them an email s few days ago about the industry's concerns of being non-compliant to the Act. They sent me an email today saying that they have handed the file over to one of their investigators and I will hear back in a week to ten days. When that occurs I will forward their remarks to the review for consideration. Again unfortunately I have a previous commitments on both April 3 and April 16 but hopefully you will keep our membership abreast of what your intentions are to conform to the Act. There are several other issues that need to be discussed and resolved at these meetings that have yet to see the agenda list and you may be assured, I will make sure you are made aware of them at the meetings I attend and will hand in documentation for your consideration on all issues I have pointed out. You are presently in receipt of several letters already that I have sent you. It is important to me that all involved in the review and its process are aware that the submissions I have made, although many, are important and need to be addressed. I know from sources I have at city hall that I am looked on by some as a trouble maker and my submissions should not be
Seite 2
considered. Being looked on in that light to me is a compliment. In dealing with government at all levels for almost 50 years, I have seen other people categorized in the same way and in many instances they had issues that were legitimate and needed to be dealt with but the government did not want to deal with them and tried to discourage their validity or paint the person bringing them forward as a trouble maker or something even worse. I thank those people who have labelled me as a trouble maker as it shows me I am hitting some nerves and supports my theories that many of the issues I am bringing forward need attention and city hall doesn't want to deal with them. I can guarantee you, I am not going away until resolve comes to all outstanding industry issues regardless of how you categorize me. I drive most days and want a viable and healthy industry that must become that way for today, tomorrow and decades to come, long after I have gone. It took me 11 years for city hall to address taxi driver workplace safety even though I was told by the hierarchy of the time, it will never happen but I did manage to get it put in the by-law making our workplace safer than it ever was prior to the mandated legislation. I have never professed that I have all the answers to the dozens of outstanding concerns that our industry membership has but on the ones I do weigh in on, I will make you aware of the concern and give some viable solutions that are meant at the very least to spur on involvement and discussion with all stakeholders in our industry including Toronto City Hall. I want to take this opportunity to thank all staff at the review committee for their consideration in receiving my documentation and I hope that it truly makes a difference this time around. Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net From: taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:28:20 -0500 To: Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Subject: Your Submissions Hello Gerry, Thank you for your email suggestions. In response to your questions: * The Drivers-Only consultations are limited to licensees who possess a taxicab driver's licence, not those who possess taxicab Standard, Ambassador and Accessible owner's licences. The review team recognizes the importance of participation all licensees, including those with Standard, Ambassador and Accessible owner's licences, and invite them to participate in the other consultations in Phase 1, as well as through submitting online comments, emails, telephone messages and written submissions. Our website has been updated to be more clear on this point, thank you. * Personal vehicle tax will be included in the topics highlighted for discussion in the consultation on May 1, 2012; however, as expressed on the website, participants can submit ideas on any topic at any consultation. * Thank you for your comments regarding accessibility and compliance. We invite you to address them at the accessibility consultations on April 3rd
Seite 3
or April 16; even if you are unable to attend, we will address this issue. We appreciate your continued participation. Best regards, The 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Team Web Page: www.toronto.ca/taxireview <http://www.toronto.ca/taxireview> Email: taxireview@toronto.ca Comments Line: (416) 338-3095 TTY: (416) 338-0889 Fax: (416) 397-5463
15 February 2012
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Urban Development Services Paula M. Dill, Commissioner
100 Queen Street West City Hall 12th Floor, East Tower Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Office of Executive Director Municipal Licensing and Standards Tel: (416) 397-4634 Fax: (416) 392-8805
Status of the Implementation of the Taxi Reforms (1998) BRIEFING NOTE

Planning and Transportation Committee December 16, 2005
Issue/Background: In April 1998, City Council established a Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry. The creation of the Task Force was the culmination of a number of concerns expressed by members of the public, the press, taxicab owners and drivers, the Toronto Board of Trade and the tourism industry respecting the state of the taxicab industry in Toronto. The concerns identified included the quality, safety and reliability of taxicabs, the level of customer service, and the taxicab industry structure, including the role of absentee owners and passive investors, and the ability of taxicab drivers to earn a fair wage.
Key Points: The guiding principles of the review of the City of Torontos taxicab industry were; 1. 2. The general public has the right to expect and demand clean, safe taxicabs; The general public has the right to expect and demand courteous, knowledgeable and experienced drivers;
3. Taxicab drivers have the right to expect and demand a fair return for their labour; 4. 5. Taxicab plate holders have the right to expect and demand a fair return for their investment; and, The City has the right to expect and demand that its By-law will be obeyed.
The goals of the review of the City of Torontos taxicab industry were to propose recommendations to ensure that the Toronto Taxicab Industry; 1. Provides safe and secure taxicab service to the public; 2. Offers high quality customer service in clean, comfortable taxicabs; 3. Employs courteous, knowledgeable and experienced drivers; and 4. Permits people who work in the taxicab industry to share fairly in the costs and benefits.
Status of Taxicab Reforms Recommended by City Council Recommendations 1 and 2, pertaining to the adoption of the Report to Review the Toronto Taxicab Industry and its recommendations, as a package, were adopted by City Council on November 28, 1998. Recommendation 3 and 4 dealt with a report on the adoption of the Passenger Bill of Rights and its implementation. City Council enacted Bylaw 245-1999, on May 12, 1999, which requires all taxicabs to display the Passenger Bill of Rights prominently within the taxicab. Recommendations 5 and 6 addressed the issue of taximeters having the ability to produce printed receipts, the capability to record trip data and the ability to monitor taxicab drivers and owners income, in an on-going fashion. City Council adopted Bylaw 245-1999, on May 12, 1999, which requires all taxicabs to be equipped with a taximeter that produces printed receipts and records trip data. However, the City was unable to implement some of the items in recommendations 5 and 6 due to concerns regarding the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (MFIPPA). Specifically task force recommendation 5.1, which required the new meters being introduced be programmed to monitor the income of drivers, and that it be a requirement that the City of Toronto be provided with this information on an annual basis. This has not been done because of the MFIPPA concerns, and because of the logistics of monitoring different drivers operating the same taxicab. All the new meters have the capability of recording data on an on-going basis. Further to this, recommendations 5.2, states all efforts be made to monitor the income of drivers/owners, 5.3, states The Bylaw be amended to provide that failure to provide the annual income information to the City of Toronto shall be an offence and 6, which requires that information from the receipt equipment be made available to Toronto Licensing as required, for information, training and review purposes. These recommendations have not been incorporated into the Bylaw due to MFIPPA concerns. A letter dated January 28, 2002, was sent to 2,563 taxicab owners, requesting the voluntary collection of data from their taximeters at the Vehicle Inspection Facility, when the taxicabs appeared for regularly scheduled inspections. Subsequently, only six taxicab owners agreed to the voluntary collection of their taximeter data. The entire issue needs re-examination relative to concerns regarding the MFIPPA.
2
However, the implementation of these recommendations would be beneficial for the gathering of taximeter data for inclusion in the formula for the issuance of Ambassador taxicab plates, the ongoing requirement to monitor drivers income for the setting of taximeter rates and in order to gauge the general economic state of the industry. Recommendations 7 and 8 dealt with the customer complaint process and the introduction of a 24hour customer service telephone line. City Council enacted Bylaw 478-1999, on July 29, 1999, which instituted 1-877-TO-TAXIS as a 24-hour customer service telephone number for submitting complaints or compliments and all taxicabs must be maintain, in the vehicle, a tariff card which displays this telephone number to passengers in the taxicab. Recommendation 8(b) required all taxicabs to display the customer service number with a safe driving message on the back of the taxicab, visible to other vehicles. This was not incorporated into the Bylaw because it was felt that it would lead to a proliferation of complaints about the driving habits of taxicab drivers, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.8 and is enforced by the Toronto Police Service. Recommendation 8(c) dealt with the ability of the public to file on-line complaints. In 2001 the Taxi Industry Unit established an e-mail hotline for Municipal Licensing and Standards (MLS) on the City of Torontos website. Recommendation 8(d) addressed with the ability of the public to choose to file a complaint through the Taxicab Advisory Committee (TAC), or by attending a hearing with staff of MLS. The TAC does not currently have a mechanism which would allow them to accept customer complaints, however MLS staff in the Taxi Industry complaints unit are available to meet with customers regarding their complaints. Recommendation 8(e) and 8(f) related to MLS responding in writing to complaints from the public and their timely resolution. The MLS Taxi Industry complaints unit currently responds in writing to the complainant, upon receipt of a complaint. A concerted effort is made to resolve all complaints received within thirty days, however the outcome of the investigations is normally communicated by telephone due to time constraints. Recommendation 9 required the adoption of the reform package, with regard to the principles behind the Ambassador taxicab program. Council endorsed the principles that Ambassador Taxicabs provide high quality driving skills, customer service and vehicles. Recommendation 10 addressed the age of vehicles used as taxicabs. The age requirements for vehicles used as taxicabs, were implemented by the enactment, by Council on March 4, 1999, of ByLaw 84-1999. Recommendation 10(a) pertained to Ambassador Taxicab training. The Ambassador Taxicab program and training component were implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of By-Law 478-1999. Recommendation 11 related to the annual issuance of 100 new Ambassador Taxicab licences from the taxicab drivers waiting list. To date, 767 Ambassador Taxicab licences have been issued to individuals on the taxicab drivers waiting list.
Recommendation 12 addressed the implementation of a two-year age of vehicle extension for wheelchair accessible taxicabs and those taxicabs powered by natural gas. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 13 set out specific conditions regarding the operation of Ambassador Taxicabs. These provisions related to the Ambassador Taxicab being driven only by the licence holder, that the licence not be transferred or leased, that the vehicle display a distinguishable Ambassador taxicab insignia and that these vehicles be entitled to pick up passengers at the Toronto International Airport, pending agreements with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. The recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. However, the portion of this recommendation regarding Ambassador Taxicabs being entitled to pick up passengers at the Toronto International Airport was not implemented. Discussions were undertaken with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, but no changes to Provincial legislation to allow Ambassador Taxicabs to pick up at the airport, have been forthcoming. MLS will revisit this issue with the new Provincial government. Recommendation 14 required that the existing 3,480 approved Standard Taxicab licences be grandfathered and recommendation 14(a) required that transferability of Standard Taxicab licences remain as currently provided for under the Bylaw for a period of five years. These recommendations were implemented administratively, requiring no amendments to the Bylaw. Recommendation 14(b) required that after five years, Standard Taxicab licences be transferred only to persons holding a valid Toronto taxicab drivers licence who may lease the taxicab, drive the taxicab, or transfer to a person holding a valid taxicab drivers licence, who may drive, lease or transfer the licence to a person holding a valid taxicab drivers licence. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 906-2003 on September 24, 2003. This amendment to the Municipal Code came into effect on January 1st, 2004. This by-law provision was challenged by the taxicab industry in 2005 and was overturned by the courts. This decision is currently being appealed by the City. Recommendation 14(c)(1) required that leasing continue as currently provided for, while amending the Bylaw to limit a lessee from being party to more than one lease and the lessee must drive the taxicab on a full-time basis. These provisions were adopted by the enactment by Council of Bylaw 94-2000, on October 5th, 2000. Recommendation 14(c)(2) required new drivers of Standard Taxicabs to complete the existing threeweek taxicab driver training program. The three-week taxicab driver training program, which was instituted in 1996, met the requirements of this recommendation. Recommendation 14(c)(3) related to taxicab driver training, which is to include training on the Taxis on Patrol program. The current training contains a component dealing with the Taxis on Patrol program. However, the issue of the administration of the Taxis on Patrol program was forwarded to the TAC for their input and comments and no response has been forthcoming regarding this program. Recommendation 14(d)(1) pertained to all Standard Taxicab owners participating fully in the taxicab industry by personally attending scheduled vehicle inspections, personally filling annual documents and personally attending all hearings relating to that owners licence or vehicle. Amendments were made to the Bylaw regarding these recommendations, but were challenged through the Courts, overturned and cannot be enforced. City of Toronto Legal has reported further to the Planning and
4
Transportation Committee (P&T) on mechanisms to require the owners attendance, but Committee deferred the matter. Recommendation 14(d)(2) related to Standard Taxicab Licence owners not being permitted to sell, transfer, lease or assign to a corporation that owns one or more licences, effectively immediately. The effective immediately clause contained in this recommendation was not incorporated because it was felt that it was not legally defensible to grandfather a process for existing Standard Taxicab owners and then attempt to discriminate against another type of Standard Taxicab plate owner. However, an amendment regarding this recommendation was debated by City Council and this recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 386-2003, by Council, on May 23, 2003. Recommendation 14(e) pertained to Standard Taxicab owners who wish to apply to have their taxicab designated as an Ambassador Taxicab. This recommendation included the requirement to successfully complete the Advanced Ambassador Taxicab training program and an age of vehicle requirement. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 478-1999, by Council, on July 29, 1999. Recommendation 15 related to the operational requirements of a Standard Taxicab, which has been approved as a Designated Ambassador Taxicab. These requirements are exactly as set out in recommendation 13 (see above). This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 478-1999, by Council, on July 29, 1999. Recommendation 16 dealt with the abandonment of Designated Ambassador Taxicab status by a Standard Taxicab owner. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 4781999, by Council, on July 29, 1999. Recommendation 17 required that Toronto Licensing investigate with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the possibility for the City of Toronto to set limits on lease rates and instituting conditions for lease cancellations. This investigation has been informal to date because the Municipality does not have the authority, under its licensing regime, to interfere with the business dealings of the industry for purposes not directly relevant to licensing. The Chair of P&T is charged with meeting with Legal to discuss the issues. Recommendations 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 and 17.4, dealt with the issue of the availability of Accessible taxicabs and specifically, 17.1 recommended that MLS achieve the goal of licensing 73 Accessible taxicabs by 2002. There are currently 75 Accessible taxicabs licensed and operating under contract to the Toronto Transit Commissions (TTC) Wheeltrans Program. Recommendation 17.2 related to the implementation of the Wheeltrans 5 Year Accessible Plan approved by the TTC and Metro Council in 1997. The implementation of the Wheeltrans 5 Year Accessible Plan was achieved through the issuance of Accessible Taxicab Licences in concert with TTC contracts for wheelchair accessible taxicab service. Recommendation 17.3 required the issuance of 25 additional Accessible taxicab licences, to be issued yearly, until such time as ten percent of all taxicabs are Accessible or until Council is satisfied that the communities needs have been met. Accessible Taxicab licences are currently available for issuance, but the issue is undergoing study by the TTC and is presently not feasible due to demand issues.
5
This recommendation also required that Accessible Taxicabs have a reduced licence renewal fee of no more than fifty percent of the Ambassador Taxicab license fees, or make grants available in similar amounts. The current Accessible taxicab initial licence fee is $387.00, as opposed to the $775.00 initial fee for an Ambassador Taxicab license. The current Accessible Taxicab license renewal fee of $150.00 is substantially less than the $604.00 renewal fee for an Ambassador taxicab license. Recommendation 17.4 requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (UDS) report on the issue of Accessible taxicabs, in consultation with the appropriate City staff, the taxicab industry and representative of the disabled community, in order to achieve the needs of the disabled community. The Commissioner of UDS in consultation with the TTC reported to P&T and to City Council regarding the TTCs, Wheeltrans 5 Year Accessible Plan, which was implemented in 1999. Recommendations 18 through 23 addressed the constitution and mandate of an elected TAC. The adoption, by City Council, of the Report to Review the Toronto Taxicab Industry set the stage for the reformation of the TAC. A report to P&T dated November 12, 1999, was forwarded to City Council recommending that the Terms of Reference for the TAC, as devised by a large Taxi Industry Workshop in November, 1999, be adopted, and an industry-wide election for membership of the TAC be held with the participation of the taxicab industry. Elections for the TAC membership were held on October 10, 2000, and the committee held its first meeting on December 4, 2000. Recommendation 24 required Toronto Licensing to develop and provide a five-day, taxicab licence owner and designated agents certification course, that must be taken annually by all taxicab licence owners and designated agents and addresses at a minimum; changes to the Bylaw or other relevant legislation, Toronto tourism information, performance statistics respecting the taxicab industry, workshop to discuss potential improvements to the taxicab industry, and an outline of personal and survivor income insurance coverage issues. On February 7th, 2003, Council enacted and passed Bylaw 93-2003, which requires all taxicab owners to attend a refresher-training course once every four years, prior to the renewal of their licence. The issue of a certification course for designated agents was forwarded to the TAC for comment and input. The TAC, to date, has not reported back on this issue. Recommendation 25 related to MLS developing and providing a three-day Taxicab Driver Refresher Training Course to be taken every two years, which is designed to enhance and/or reinforce the skill sets of current taxicab drivers in the City of Toronto. The focus of the course is on providing superior professional customer service to the City's diverse clientele. A five-day Taxicab Driver Refresher Training Course, to be taken every two years was implemented in 2001. This refresher training was reduced to a three-day course to be taken every four years, by the enactment of Bylaw 93-2003, by City Council, on March 8th, 2003. Recommendation 25.1 requested that MLS staff and the office of the CAO immediately begin working with community colleges and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to establish a time flexible, comprehensive Ambassador Taxicab education and training program. This process was initiated in 1999. Recommendations 25.2, 26 and 26.1 required the Commissioner of UDS to prepare terms of reference in order to begin a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, regarding the provision of training through a community college for the Ambassador Taxicab program to begin in 1999. Centennial
6
College was successful in RFP process and began to deliver the forty-day Ambassador Taxicab training program in 1999. Recommendation 26.1.1 requested that all new recipients of City issued taxicab licences be required to complete the Ambassador Taxicab training program. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 26.1.2 dealt with the Ambassador Taxicab training course being available in two parts, over a two-year, period during regular and off-hours. The Ambassador Taxicab training course is delivered over forty consecutive days and is available during regular and off-hours, but not in two parts over a two-year period as recommended. This is due to the number of Ambassador Taxicab licences issued since 1999, and as a result, the numerous taxicab drivers requiring the Ambassador Taxicab training course. Recommendation 27 requested that MLS consult with City Solicitor regarding the necessary bylaw amendments to the taxicab drivers waiting list regarding a mechanism to determine who is allowed access to the Ambassador Taxicab training course. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 28 dealt with taxicab drivers access to the Ambassador Taxicab training course. The training course is only available to drivers from the taxicab drivers waiting list that are selected for issuance of an Ambassador Taxicab licence. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 29 related to the option of taxicab drivers selected for the issuance of an Ambassador Taxicab licence, from the taxicab drivers waiting list, electing to take or defer the Ambassador Taxicab training. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 30 required that taxicab drivers on the Ambassador Taxicab issuance waiting list, who take the Ambassador Taxicab training course and fail, be given one opportunity to add their name to the bottom of the drivers waiting list and retake the course. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendations 31 and 32 pertained to age of vehicle requirements for taxicabs. City Council enacted Bylaw 478-1999, on July 29, 1999, which amended the Bylaw to institute these recommendations. Recommendation 33 and 34 dealt with an increase, of ten full-time equivalents, in the number of taxicab enforcement staff, and the appropriate operating budget increases, along with a corresponding increase in licence fees. This was achieved by including monies in the 1999 budget for the hiring of ten additional front line enforcement staff in the Taxicab Industry Unit. Recommendation 34.1 required the development of a formula to address the future issuance of Ambassador Taxicab licences. The issuance formula was revised in 1998, and again revised in 2002, in consultation with the Finance Department. The formula formed the basis for Councils approval in April 2003, of the issuance of an additional 841 Ambassador Taxicab plates in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Recommendation 34.2 pertained to the ongoing monitoring of changes in standard taxicab plate values, lease rates, operating costs and taxicab drivers income. MLS currently monitors standard
7
taxicab plate values, lease rates and operating costs for inclusion in the Ambassador Taxicab issuance and fare formulas. As mentioned previously, taxicab drivers incomes must be collected voluntarily due to MFIPPA concerns. Recommendation 34.3 requested an increase in enforcement and partnering with the Toronto Police Service (TPS) in order to strictly enforce the Bylaw provisions regarding unlicensed and out-of-town taxicabs and limousines and to report to Council on this issue. The Taxicab Industry Unit undertakes undercover investigations of out-of town and unlicensed taxicabs and limousines on an ongoing basis and occasionally, in partnership with TPS. A report on illegal taxicabs and limousines, dated September 19, 2002, was prepared, submitted to the Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) and forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee and Council. Recommendation 34.4 required the adoption of mechanisms to ensure compliance with recommendations 14(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The mechanisms adopted are set out above, in this briefing note. Recommendation 34.5 pertained to the provision of a taxicab driver funded benefits package, including long-term disability coverage and spousal benefits. City of Toronto Legal has advised that the City does not have the authority to develop and administer such a program on behalf of taxicab drivers. However, the topics of additional insurance to cover long-term disability and spousal benefits are addressed in the taxicab driver and owner refresher-training courses, which all licensees must complete, every four years, as a prerequisite for licence renewal. Recommendation 34.6 requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services consult with various financial institutions, and submit a report on the feasibility of the City of Toronto buying back all outstanding taxicab plates, with an appropriate financial mechanism, and the City of Toronto subsequently act as the leasing agent for these plates. City of Toronto Legal advised that this proposal is outside the jurisdiction of the City, and was not pursued. It was also recognised that the City does not have the resources to consider such a plan. Recommendation 35 required the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report to Council on the resource and budget implications related to taxicab training requirements and the customer complaints process. Reports relating to resources and budgeting for taxicab driver and owner training and the customer complaints process have been prepared and forwarded to Committee and Council. A number of recommendations contained in those reports have been adopted by Council and implemented by MLS. Recommendation 36 required the Commissioner of UDS in consultation with the City Solicitor to report on changes to the Bylaw, or other legislation, to enhance the enforcement of the licensing Bylaw relative to the taxicab industry. MLS has met numerous times with City Legal and requested legal opinions regarding enforcement issues. These meetings and legal opinions are part of an ongoing process to improve and find new mechanisms for enforcement. Recommendation 37 requested that MLS, in co-operation with the Ministry of Transportation (MOT), develop and seek appropriate approval for a co-ordinated taxicab licence identification program. This would require the vertical word TAXI to be included on the Ontario Licence Plate attached to taxicabs, which clearly identifies the vehicle as a taxicab, and to investigate a coordinated numbering system that provides for matching numbers for Ontario Licence Plates and City of Toronto taxicab plates.
8
Further to this, recommendation 38 requested that MLS, in co-operation with the MOT, investigate the possibility of requiring the vertical word LIVERY to be included on the Ontario Licence Plate attached to the vehicle, which clearly identifies the vehicle as a limousine. These two recommendations were discussed with the MOT in 1999, and were not pursued due to the fact that the Province dictates that a licence plate attaches to the owner of the vehicle, as opposed to staying attached to the vehicle, in the event of the sale of the vehicle. This presents a problem in implementing a system of vehicle licensing that applies only to taxicabs and limousines in Toronto only. However, recent talks with the Ministry have proven fruitful and the Ministry has undertaken to study the possibilities of how such a system could be implemented. Recommendation 39 related to MLS working in co-operation with the MOT to develop a taxicab safety blitz inspection program. The MLS Taxi Industry Unit partners with MOT, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the TPS in conducting taxicab safety blitz inspections, which are conducted approximately every two months. Recommendation 40 requested that the TAC and MLS work with the Toronto hotel industry to ensure that hotel doormen hail only Toronto licensed taxicabs for hotel guests. The Taxi Industry Unit has held several meetings with Mr. Rod Seiling, President of the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, regarding this issue. Further to this, MLS Taxi Industry Unit staff have visited and met with security staff from the major Toronto hotels to advise them regarding this issue and provide contact persons at MLS for the provision of information and an immediate response to complaints regarding taxicabs on their hotel premises. Recommendation 41 required MLS to consult with the MMAH to seek amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001,c. 25, (the new Act), to remove the exemption for Pearson International Airport (PIA) plated taxicabs and limousines, which currently permits these vehicles that are not licensed by MLS, to pick up fares within the boundaries of the City of Toronto. Discussions will be undertaken with the new Provincial government regarding changes to the legislation relative to this issue. Recommendation 43 required MLS, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to seek to amend the Bylaw to licence designated agents as managers, subject to duties and obligations to be developed by MLS, considering the following options in the development of such licensing provisions; that designated agents who manage one or more plates be active in the taxicab industry and that designated agents successfully complete a certified training course. This matter was referred to the TAC in October of 2000, for their consideration and input, no report has yet been received from the TAC. Recommendation 43.1 requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (UDS) report, within one year, on how taxicab brokerages can be made to accept greater responsibility and accountability for taxicabs within their brokerages. This matter was referred to the TAC for their consideration and input, no report has yet been received from the TAC. Recommendation 44 pertained to the report, referred to in recommendation 43.1, on how taxicab brokerages can be made to accept greater responsibility and accountability for taxicabs within their brokerages, be referred to the Licensing Commission. Seeing as the Toronto Licensing Tribunal has replaced the Licensing Commission, which now only deals with the licence issuance and revocation appeals, this matter, was referred to the TAC for their consideration and input, no report has yet been received from the TAC.
9
Recommendation 45 related to amendments limiting the number of hours an individual can operate an Ambassador taxicab to 60 hours every seven consecutive days and the requirement to maintain a daily log, documenting the hours worked, which must be provide to MLS for review upon request. The enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999, amended the Bylaw by limiting the number of hours an individual can operate an Ambassador taxicab. The issue of maintaining a daily log of hours worked did not require an amendment, as the Bylaw contains provisions requiring the maintenance of a trip record which must be retained by the taxicab owner for a twelve month period and be available to MLS upon request. Recommendation 46 requested that MLS, in consultation with the City Solicitor, amend the Bylaw to provide for a $2.00 evening surcharge between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. City Council, at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted without amendment, a motion moved by Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong and seconded by Councillor Olivia Chow, deleting recommendation 46 of the Final Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry. Recommendation 47 required MLS discuss with MMAH amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001,c. 25, regarding minimum bylaw penalties. Discussions were held with MMAH, which resulted in no amendments being made to the new Act at this time. Recommendation 48 pertained to MLS developing an implementation management, performance and communications plan to inform stakeholders regarding the status of the taxicab reforms. A plan was devised for managing the implementation of the reforms and communication to taxicab industry stakeholders was achieved by way of reports to LSC, P&T, and the referring of many of the recommendations to the TAC for their consideration and comments. Recommendation 49 requested that the report referred to in recommendation 48 be referred to the City Solicitor for the purpose of developing specific instructions to amend the Bylaw, as required by these recommendations. The City Solicitor and the Municipal Law Group of Legal Services were intimately involved, by way of ongoing consultation, regarding the reporting to LSC, P&T and City Council, of legal issues surrounding the recommended taxicab reforms. Recommendation 49.1 related to MLS reminding all current taxicab owners, licensees and transferees of licences that taxicab owners licences are the exclusive property of the City of Toronto. The implementation of this recommendation was achieved by including a component regarding the ownership of taxicab owners licences in the taxicab owner and driver training curriculum. Recommendation 49.2 required Council to adopt a firm commitment to having an annual review of the taxicab reforms by the appropriate City staff and the City Auditor and the report be submitted to Committee and Council. This recommendation was referred back to Committee with a motion to amend it, but Committee never dealt with the issue. It was the stated intention of the City Auditor to examine the Ambassador Taxicab program in 2002 and report his or her findings to Council. Recommendation 50 pertained to authorising and directing the appropriate City Officials to take the necessary action to implement the recommended reforms. This was achieved by the ongoing implementation of the recommendations emanating from the Final Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry. Recommendation 50.1 related to taxicab drivers being encouraged to purchase appropriate income protection insurance coverage, which would protect them in cases where they are unable to drive
10
their taxicabs due to illness or other circumstances. This recommendation was implemented by the inclusion of a Business Management and Financial Planning component in the training of all taxicab owners and drivers. Recommendation 50.2 dealt with a further recommendation by Councillor Giansante respecting the consideration by MLS of the licensing of designated agents. This matter was referred by the LSC to the TAC for their input and comments. The TAC has yet to report back on this issue. Conclusions: In total there were ninety-seven recommendations emanating from the Final Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry. Of these recommendations, eighty-seven percent have now been resolved with only twelve remaining unresolved at present. Of the twelve unresolved recommendations, five were referred to the TAC for their consideration and input, with no reports forthcoming as yet. The remaining seven recommendations of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry, requested that MLS undertake discussions with a number of Provincial ministries and other non-governmental organizations in order to facilitate the implementation of certain recommendations. Discussions have been undertaken with the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, regarding the feasibility of implementing a number of the recommendations. The initial discussions did not result in substantive changes to any legislation, pertaining to the taxicab industry in the City of Toronto, as reflected in the Taxicab Task Force Recommended Reforms Reference Table B, of the attendant report. However, given that there has been a recent change in the Provincial government these discussions will be revisited by MLS in future. MLS resolved, but were unable to implement a number of the recommendations. This was due to the fact that the Director of Corporate Access and Privacy and City of Toronto Legal Services advised MLS that MFIPPA concerns and current Provincial legislation, do not allow the City of Toronto to enact the necessary bylaws required to implement these recommendations.
Prepared by: Mark Dimuantes
Circulated to: Paula Dill, Pam Coburn, Frank Weinstock, Bruce Robertson, Bryan Byng Richard Mucha, Glenn Steeves, Contact for further information: Mark Dimuantes, Sr. Policy and Research Officer, Policy and Business Planning Unit Municipal Licensing and Standards Phone: (416) 392-8794 Fax: (416) 392-8805 e-mail: mdimuant@toronto.ca
Date: January 13, 2004

11
Gerald H. Manley Taxi Owner, Plate# 416 105 Rowena Drive, Apt. 405 Toronto, Ontario M3A 1R2 17 December 2011 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Dear John, Mysteriously missing from the Citys agenda list at the meeting on December 8, 2011 and not discussed at all at any table I am aware of was the present cleanliness and mechanical condition of Toronto taxis as well as the current level of professionalism of the Citys licensed taxi drivers and owners. If anyone feels the adoption of certain recommendations in this area that came from the 1998 reformation meetings solved these issues, they are sadly mistaken. There is not a day goes by that I and many other industry professionals that care do not observe dirty cars inside and out that are, shall we say less than mechanically fit as well. It appears ludicrous that the City treats fleet operated cars with the same regulations and requirements as an independent owner/operator. Most fleet taxis or leased taxi plates operate on a 24 hour-7day a week schedule and put on two hundred thousand plus kilometers on those taxis annually while the independent would do less than half of that. Yet each is inspected twice a year. Does the City really feel that allowing some taxis to put on in excess of one hundred thousand kilometers in a six-month period without inspection is prudent? Is the City really that naive to believe these operators keep their taxis mechanically fit or clean during that six-month period? As a matter of public safety, those inspections must be increased back to where they once were and that was quarterly not semi annually. Along with the dirty and mechanically unfit taxi complaints are the myriads of customer complaints about rude drivers, hygiene issues, cannot reasonably communicate in English, do not know where they are going and in some cases the destination is a major street and/or intersection, do not know the location of major points of interest in the city, are unaware of major events coming up in the city, continually talk on the phone during the trip thus disregarding a provincial statute, loud ethnic radio music, do not accept all modes of payment and the list goes on and on. I remember Councillor Howard Moscoe telling me he called for a taxi at his home one morning to go to city hall and when the driver arrived he asked where city hall was and how to get there and you really expect us to believe all of the drivers coming out of the taxi school actually pass the course? The City staff and Councillors that sit on the L&S Committee have been made aware of these problems and in most cases close a blind eye. They usually respond that because they dont receive many consumer complaints in these areas, there cannot be as big of a problem as we are portraying. They do not consider that the consumer for the most part would not report the drivers, as they do not want them to get into trouble and they fear reprisals from some of these drivers if their name was given as the complainant.
Gerald H. Manley
18 December 2011 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Dear John, If there was ever an outstanding issue that shows why I feel the City of Toronto will not deal fairly or responsibly with our industrys membership at the upcoming major stakeholders meetings, the P.V. T. (Private Vehicle Tax) would be the poster child for those concerns. I would have submitted this matter in my original series of what I believe are the major issues to be dealt with at those meetings other than the fact that representatives from Mayor Fords office assured me this would be dealt with in 2011. How foolish of me to believe that would actually happen. As you are aware, prior to this tax being implemented in 2007 industry members approached various councillors pointing out that our industrys vehicles did not meet the required criteria for this upcoming tax. We pointed out that our taxis are not Private Vehicles as required but Vehicles Used For Commercial Purpose therefore should be exempted from this tax. These councillors agreed with our assessment and assured us that we would not be taxed in this program but due to the powers to be at Toronto city hall not being attentive to this programs implementation, we were assessed the tax. Since 2007, I have written numerous letters to the Mayors office, city councillors and city hall staff to have this tax stopped from being charged to our taxi owners and whatever tax was paid to date to be reimbursed. In 2010 prior to Mayor Ford stopping this tax, Toronto city hall members recognized the error and did reimburse one year of the tax but has not given back the other two years we paid it. I continued my letters of enquiry as to why the other two years were disregarded. In May of 2011, I received a phone call from Ms. Adrienne Batra who was then the Mayors press secretary but since has moved on to the Toronto Sun Publication telling me that Mayor Ford has asked her to look into the PVT taxi issue and get back to him. From May through to November 2011 when Ms. Batra left I only received information as to where this issue stood when I contacted her, which I did on three separate occasions, as not once did she contact me during this period. In the last week prior to her leaving, I did converse with her and she informed me she had given her report to Mayor Ford and believed our membership should be reimbursed that tax for the other two years it was paid but some councillors were not in favour of giving back the funds.
Ms. Batra did not contact me prior to leaving Mayor Fords office with any final resolve to this outstanding issue so I phoned her at her new employment leaving her a message to contact me but she never did. With no other alternative open to me I contacted Mayor Fords office in early December this year via email detailing what has occurred and pointing out that the ball has been put back into his court and requesting an answer. No response. Mayor Ford continually talks on radio and television about his open door policy as well as his open and transparent government and that all a citizen has to do is contact him at his office and any issue will be dealt with. Well Mr. Mayor, I have been attempting to get you to answer this issue for just about one year now and you have yet to do so and in addition the three pervious years before you took office. It is one thing to talk the talk but an entirely different thing to walk the walk. Toronto city hall has stolen two years of the Private Vehicle Tax from our taxi owners and we want it back. The admission of wrong doing is obvious by the fact one year has already been given back and there is no logical or legal reason why the other two years are not addressed as well. Please do not give us the excuse that this came from the previous council and there isnt anything you can do to correct the situation as all the issues you are presently dealing with came for the most part from the same source and this issue is no different. Will Mayor Ford and Toronto city council do the right and responsible thing to correct this injustice? I have serious doubts they will, as it should have been corrected in 2007 and it would never have been an issue. Now Mayor Ford has had it on his desk for over a year now and he hasnt done anything about it either. I will bring it up as an outstanding issue to be resolved at the upcoming taxi major stakeholders meetings but as all of the other outstanding issues that will be tabled, I wont hold my breath that any of our issues including this one will be resolved fairly or in a timely manner.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Dr. Marion Joppe's Assessment of the Toronto Taxi Industry
From: "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Date: 12/17/2011 8:22 AM Subject: Dr. Marion Joppe's Assessment of the Toronto Taxi Industry
Dear Mr. Manley, My, this brings back memories!!! Unfortunately, I am just wrapping up for the year as I'll be away until January 3rd. So just a quick synopsis and we can pursue the discussion in the new year, if you would find that useful. The Board of Trade had contracted me to work on the taxicab issue in 1996/97 and I submitted my final report in March 1997. I reached the conclusion that you quoted because I held extensive meetings with taxicab drivers and owners and learned a lot about the hardships faced by many of the drivers. We had proposed an enhanced training program, but of course Councillor Moscoe highjacked the agenda and Toronto ended up with the Ambassador Program. Although I have not followed the developments regularly over the years, I have always had the sense that the restrictions put on the Ambassador cabs were such that it was very difficult, not to say impossible, to make a living with them, and that they certainly would not provide a pension upon retirement the way plates have over the years. If you would like a copy of that 1997 report, I could forward one to you in the new year as well. I hope this answers your question at least partly. Wishing you a very happy holiday season, Marion Joppe, PhD Research Chair in Tourism School of Hospitality and Tourism Management Macdonald Stewart Hall, #306 University of Guelph Guelph ON Canada N1G 1W2 Tel: 519-824-4120 ext. 58552 Fax: 519-823-5512
From: "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> To: mjoppe@uoguelph.ca Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:57:30 PM Subject: Fw: Quote From An Interview For The Toronto Taxi Industry In Their Cab Connection Magazine
Dr. Joppe, I have been a member of the Toronto taxi industry for almost four decades. I vividly remember reading an interview you gave many years ago for a publication in the Toronto taxi industry called Cab Connection. You stated at that time that " If the City of Toronto doesn't stop using its taxi industry as a social employment welfare net, it will never achieve success as a business or customer service industry." I believe your time as the head of the Toronto Historical Society gave you a unique insight as to what were and are the troubles occurring in our industry and how they negatively affect tourism in the City of Toronto.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
The reason I am asking if you recall that statement is our industry is entering into taxi reformation meetings, which we allegedly had in 1998 with little resolve and I believe your comments were very accurate in describing how the City deals with its taxi industry, which hopefully might help us turn the corner in this matter at these upcoming meetings. Over the past several years, I have often referred to your remarks and will continue to do so with the hope that changes in this area will occur. I believe that perhaps this time the City maybe receptive to comments from professionals outside of the industry especially since the main architect of our industry's issues and disasterous results over the past couple of decades, Councillor Howard Moscoe has retired. I am interested in the history of why you came to this conclusion and if you still believe in that statement?
Gerry Manley 105 Rowena Drive, Suite 405 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3A 1R2 Tel: (416) 948-1921 Fax: (416) 441-9593 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Web Site: www.taxidriversafety.net
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Your position for 2012 Taxicab Industry Review

Mr. Addai,
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "Asafo Addai" <shangoxx@gmail.com> 12/17/2011 5:01 PM Your position for 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Andy Reti's THE ISSUING FORMULA-97.doc
As my letters are part of the public domain, I have no legal position or personal objection in denying you the right in posting them. I have attached another letter of interest that was written in 1997 by Mr. Andy Reti but is as pertinent today as it was when it was written. I believe Taxi News will post this with my letters as well. I can appreciate that you are trying to facilitate change within the Toronto Taxi Industry but how you are going about it is, shall we say less than accurate. To claim systemic racism is beyond ridiculous in content and without any realm of truth. I will not go into the lack of merits in your claim other than to say I have written a number of articles on your claim, which were printed in Taxi News that thoroughly describe the claim from an entirely different perspective. My hope is that the adjudicator that heard your case will eventually come down with an interpretation realizing your ruse and what the true reasons behind what you and the Ambassador operators are really trying to achieve. It is widely known in the industry that your claim under the alleged circumstances of systemic racism is bogus and many of our industry's members feel that you are potentially hurting the efforts in facilitating the needed changes that will bring our industry back into a position of health where taxi drivers can earn a reasonable living without working twenty hours a day seven days a week to achieve it. Your claim will put the City on the defensive and possibly not as receptive to resolving the numerous outstanding industry issues that exist. I would suggest that you try to focus on those issues and put aside your personal agenda of taxi reform. I write articles for Toronto's Taxi News publication, which I am sure you know comes out on a monthly basis. Any position I have on industry issues can be readily seen in that publication if the editor and/or publisher feel they have merit enough to be published. One other point that needs to be clarified Mr. Addai is that your email sign off reads and I quote "The voice of all taxi drivers." I am a taxi driver first and foremost and drive most days and I can assure you that you are not my voice in the Toronto taxi industry nor the voice of the vast majority of members in our industry. I would respectfully ask you to remove that statement from your emails and any other Toronto taxi industry correspondence in the future as it is very inaccurate.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley ----- Original Message ----From: Asafo Addai To: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Your position for 2012 Taxicab Industry Review
Dear Mr. Manley, Given your high profile in the Toronto taxi scene, would you be kind enough to share your vision and proposal for the upcoming 2012 Taxicab Industry Review. I would love to publish your position for our readers. Thanks for your co-operation.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
Ps. Would it be alright if I posted your 12 letters on this blog? -Asafo A. Addai www.jitneyhack.com The voice of all taxi drivers
05/17/2012
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Private Vehicle Tax (P.V.T.)

From: To: Date: Subject: "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "taxireview" <taxireview@toronto.ca> 12/21/2011 3:30 PM Private Vehicle Tax (P.V.T.)
Taxi Review, As I have completed my submissions to you, I wanted to point out that they are all issues that need attention from city hall. It is my intention to point out issues and give some viable suggestions to resolve them. I have never portrayed that I have all the answers nor do I represent any particular faction in the Toronto taxi industry but I believe my almost 40 years of involvement other than just driving my taxi in this industry does give a certain amount of insight that most of our other members cannot provide and at the very least the letters are a good starting point for discussion. I am looking forward to the second level of discussions with the hope that the City of Toronto will prove me wrong in my assessment that whatever changes the City will make, our industry will be worse off as that has been the historical results for the past fifty years
Gerry Manley ----- Original Message ----From: taxireview To: Gerry Manley Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Private Vehicle Tax (P.V.T.) Hello Gerry, Thanks for you submission. You have already submitted this, but better you submit it twice than not at all. Seasons greetings to you as well.
Best regards, The 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Team Web Page: www.toronto.ca/taxireview Email: taxireview@toronto.ca Comments Line: (416) 338-3095 TTY: (416) 338-0889 Fax: (416) 397-5463 >>> On 12/20/2011 at 4:57 PM, in message <8A8030D59F2A4CAE83C29ECAB94E0383@gerry>, "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> wrote: To Whom It may Concern, I am not sure whether I submitted this for your consideration. If I have just delete this copy. This should complete my items for consideration. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of our staff involved in this most difficult process. I hope 2012 brings good health, happiness and prosperity to not only all of our staff, but their families and friends as well.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 3
taxireview - Dr. Marion Joppe's 1997 Report on the Toronto Taxi Industry
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> <taxireview@toronto.ca> 12/23/2011 6:01 PM Dr. Marion Joppe's 1997 Report on the Toronto Taxi Industry "Taxi News" <john@taxinews.com>, "ML&S Taxi Training Manager Emilio Leonardis" <eleonar@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Taxi Investigation Services Director Lance Cumberbatch" <Lcumber@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Manager Policy & Planning Services Mr. Rudi Czekalla" <rczekal@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Ian Redfearn" <iredfear@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Executive Director Bruce Robertson" <brobert1@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Director Licensing Services Mr. Bryan Byng" <bbyng@toronto.ca>, "Marion Joppe PhD" <mjoppe@uoguelph.ca>, "Councillor Vincent Crisanti Ward 1 Etobicoke North" <councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Shelley Carroll Ward 33 Don Valley East" <councillor_carroll@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Sarah Doucette Ward 13 Parkdale-High park" <councillor_doucette@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Ron Moeser Ward 44 Scarborough East" <councillor_moeser@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Raymond Cho Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River" <councillor_cho@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Peter Milczyn Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore" <councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Paula Fletcher Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth" <councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Paul Ainslie Ward 43 Scarborough-East" <councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Pam McConnell Ward 28 Toronto CentreRosedale" <councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Norm Kelly Ward 30 Scarborough-Agincourt" <councillor_kelly@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mike Layton Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina" <councillor_layton@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mike Del Grande Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt" <councillor_delgrande@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Michelle Berardinetti ward 35 Scarborough Southwest" <councillor_berardinetti@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Michael Thompson Ward 37 Scarborough Centre" <councillor_thompson@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon Ward 32 BeachesEast York" <councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mary Fragedakis Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth" <councillor_fragedakis@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mark Grimes Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore" <councillor_grimes@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Maria Augimeri Ward 9 York Centre" <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre" <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre" <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River" <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport" <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale" <councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Karen Stintz Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence" <councillor_stintz@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Josh Matlow Ward 22 St. Paul's" <councillor_matlow@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Josh Colle Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence" <councillor_colle@toronto.ca>, "Councillor John Parker Ward 26 Don Valley West" <councillor_parker@toronto.ca>, "Councillor John Filion Ward 23 Willowdale" <councillor_filion@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Joe Mihevc Ward 21 St. Paul's" <councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Jaye Robinson Ward 25 Don Valley Don Valley West" <councillor_robinson@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Janet Davis Ward 31 Beaches-East York" <councillor_davis@toronto.ca>, "Councillor James Pastermak Ward 10 York Centre" <councillor_pasternak@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Gord Perks Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park" <councillor_perks@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti Ward 7 York West" <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Gary Crawford Ward 36 Scarborough
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 3
Southwest" <councillor_crawford@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Frank Di Giorgio Ward 12 York South-Weston" <councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Doug Holyday Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre" <councillor_holyday@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Doug Ford Ward 2 Etobicoke North" <councillor_dford@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong Ward 34 Don Valley East" <councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca>, "Councillor David Shiner Ward 24 Willowdale" <councillor_shiner@toronto.ca> Attachments: 22March97 Report By Dr. Marion Joppe On The Metro Taxi Industry.pdf; 17Dec11 Taxi News Article Forgotten Agenda Item.doc
To All, In my letter sent on 17 December 2011, "Forgotten Agenda Item" that deals with issues involving mechanically unfit and dirty taxis as well as less than professional drivers in many cases that still exist in the City of Toronto's taxi fleet, I referred to a report that was completed on March 22,1997 and submitted by Dr. Marion Joppe, who at that time was affiliated with Ryerson Polytechnic University. That report was commissioned by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto of the time. There were industry members who believed the content of this report was pertinent to many of our issues of the time and asked for its inclusion in the 1998 reformation meetings but Councillor Moscoe axed that idea. I have detailed Dr. Joppe's background in my 17 December 2011 letter that I attached to this correspondence as well as attaching her 1997 report that she was kind enough to take time and send me during this busy time of year and that I made into a PDF file for all to view. Seeing as the L&S Committee always asks for input from the Toronto Travel & Tourism on any taxi industry concerns, I believe that Dr. Joppe's 1997 report in many cases would be as pertinent today as it was then. Yes some of the circumstances have changed since that time and the dollar values she gives have dramatically increased but many of the points and recommendations she made in 1997 would be relevant today. For example the number of taxis and the issuance of more taxi plates. Seeing as Dr. Joppe is considered an expert in the field of Travel & Tourism and of course the Toronto taxi industry is heavily linked with transportation services in this area, I believe it would be of great assistance for our upcoming reformation meetings to have the City of Toronto to consult with this expert especially since we are fortunate enough to have her living in the GTA. I found the report very well done and informative. It corrected one of my assumptions and that was that I thought the first taxi plate allowed to be sold in Toronto was 1965 but Dr. Joppe's report shows in was actually in 1963. In my letter I showed a link to Ryerson University as well as the University of Guelph which is out of date as Dr. Joppe is now affiliated only with the University of Guelph. Below is listed her contact information. University of Guelph Marion Joppe, PhD University Research Chair School of Hospitality and Tourism Management College of Management and Economics Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120, Ext. 58552 Fax: 519-823-5512 Email: mjoppe@uoguelph.ca Web: www.htm.uoguelph.ca
Gerry Manley 105 Rowena Drive, Suite 405
05/17/2012
Page 3 of 3
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3A 1R2 Tel: (416) 948-1921 Fax: (416) 441-9593 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Web Site: www.taxidriversafety.net
05/17/2012
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (W.S.I.B.)
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "Taxi News" <john@taxinews.com> 12/29/2011 10:13 AM Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (W.S.I.B.) "ML&S Manager Policy & Planning Services Mr. Rudi Czekalla" <rczekal@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Executive Director Bruce Robertson" <brobert1@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Director Licensing Services Mr. Bryan Byng" <bbyng@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre" <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre" <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River" <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport" <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, "City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford" <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, "City Of Toronto Deputy City Manager John Livey" <jlivey@toronto.ca> Attachments: 29Dec11 Taxi News WSIB Letter.doc
Dear John, I have written this short article at the request of several industry members who are aware of my involvement in this subject matter over the past 2 plus decades. At this late date, I am sure that this will not be part of your January 2012 issue but perhaps it might be part of your February 2012 issue. If and when this does start, I believe a number of other areas need to be brought on board as well. Without getting into all the reasons why, I believe many of them are self-evident. Below is a list of those I believe should be involved in this process and there are probably others as well that I at this time have not thought of. For once, let's do this right the first time if we decide to move forward so we don't have to revisit it in a couple of years down the road. 1) Ministry of Insurances 2) Current & Perspective Insurance Companies Involved in Our Industry 3) Metro Links 4) Other Ministry of Labour Departments That Would Become Available 5) A.O.M. (Association of Municipalities - Ontario) Note: The City Of Toronto is No Longer Member Of & Should Consider Re-Joining
05/17/2012
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Airport Exemption
From: To:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: 6/6/2012 6:11 PM Subject: Airport Exemption CC: City Of Toronto Deputy City Manager John Livey <jlivey@toronto.ca>, City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, City of Toronto Solicitor Anna Kinastowski <akinasto@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York SouthWeston <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, ML&S Taxi Investigation Services Director Lance Cumberbatch <Lcumber@toronto.ca> Attachments: 18Aug09 McGuinty Email On Exemption Issue.eml; 7Sep09 McGuinty Email.eml; 1978 Bill 195 and 173 Point of Pick Up Legislation.pdf
Dear Tracey, As part of the ongoing taxi review, there was a day dedicated to issues that the City of Toronto feels they have no control or authority over. Unfortunately due to a previous commitment, I was unable to attend that meeting but I am sure that the Airport Exemption issue would have been one of the main topics of discussion. Due to the fact that I have been involved in trying to correct this injustice since 1980 and was a member of a three man Toronto taxi industry committee with Mr. Andy Reti and Mr. Hillel Gudes from 2002 to 2006 that dealt with the Province of Ontario on this issue, which by the way was momentarily successful in having this Exemption left out of the Toronto Act (2006), I have been requested by industry members to respond to how the City of Toronto could intercede on behalf of our membership in an attempt to overturn this injustice. As you see, I have attached three letters of many in my possession on this subject matter to show how this can be addressed by the City of Toronto. The Toronto Act (2006) is the replacement for the Ontario Provincial Municipal Act as far as the City of Toronto is concerned. This Act was brought into being by the Province as they deemed the City of Toronto to be a mature and responsible government capable of self-government and able to handle all of their own affairs without provincial interference, which was addressed by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable John Gerretsen and at my request as you can see in the attached letter, included taxi industry issues. Shortly after the Act came into being and before the ink had dried, there was a shake-up in the provincial government and a new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was named, Minister Watson who without major stakeholder's meetings, reversed his government's promise of not including the Airport Exemption in the Toronto Act (2006) and put it in. Apparently, the Minister has that power without going to Queens Park for authority but it raised a great deal of questions and controversy, which to this day has not been addressed. When Premier McGuinty was questioned by the press on this issue, he responded as per the second attached letter, which included some comments made by Minister Watson as well. When viewed in context, you will observe just how ludicrous those comments were and showed two elected officials scrambling after being caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. The City of Toronto has not once gone to the Province on behalf of their taxi and livery members to find out why the Premier allowed this reversal. Considering that the Province's actions violates their word to the City to not interfere with how they operate their city, it should raise a red flag to our city hall members that this maybe only the beginning of provincial interference if enough influence is brought on the provincial government to change City of Toronto operating and procedural by-laws to suit the province's intended purposes thus totally violating not only the spirit of the Toronto Act (2006) but its alleged mandate as well. The Toronto taxi industry has lost in excess of one and a half billion dollars in revenues since this Exemption began in 1978. There was no logical reason for it to be legislated in the first place and the provincial government in 1980 held meetings as well on this subject matter with the Honourable Tom Wells, the then Minister of Inter-Government Affairs , who promisd to remove the Exemption back then as he deemed it unfair but it never reached the floor of Queens Park. The Toronto taxi membership has carried the torch on this issue for over thirty-two years without one iota of help from Toronto City Hall. It is well overdue that City Hall take this issue to Queens Park and demand they live up to their promises as stated in the Toronto Act (2006) by removing the exemption from all Ontario provincial statutes, which would then give the City the authorities to keep out the GTAA members unless they hold a proper and current Toronto
06/07/2012
Page 2 of 2
taxi or livery license. Our membership is requesting the Mayor of Toronto to facilitate a meeting the Premier of Ontario, the Chair of the L&S Committee, Executive Director of Licensing Services and the members of the three man taxi industry committee that has dealt with the Airport Exemption to bring this unfair issue to the table. The Toronto taxi and livery industry members have suffered this discrimination for over three decades and it is overdue that a fair and level playing field be achieved that gives our memberships the rights that are theirs as stated in their municipal licenses and promised by the way by the provincial point-of-pickup legislation as well.
06/07/2012
Page 1 of 2
"Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper" <pm@pm.gc.ca>; "MPP Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty" <reception.leg@opo.gov.on.ca> Cc: "TTIA Louis M Seta" <laliseta@rogers.com>; "Taxi News (1) Mike Beggs" <mikebeggs@rogers.com>; "Taxi News" <taxinews@the-wire.com>; "Peter Zahakos Co-Op Taxi" <peter@co-opcabs.com>; "Peter McSherry" <bigred@ontariointernet.com>; "Peter Chapman" <pristinecarservice@rogers.com>; "MPP NDP Toronto Rosario Marchese" <rmarchese-co@ndp.on.ca>; "MPP NDP Toronto Michael Prue" <mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca>; "MPP Minister of Transportation James J. Bradley" <jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing Jim Watson" <minister.mah@ontario.ca>; "MPP Minister of Labour Peter Fonseca" <pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Minister of Aboriginal Affairs" <bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Tony Ruprecht" <truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Shafiq Qaadri" <sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Monte Kwinter" <mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Mike Colle" <mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Michael Bryant" <mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Mary Anne V. Chambers" <machambers.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Mario Sergio" <msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Lorenzo Berardinetti" <lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Laurel Broten" <lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Kathleen O.Wynne" <kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Joseph Cordiano" <jcordiano.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Gerry Phillips" <gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Gerard Kennedy" <gkennedy.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto George Smitherman" <gsmitherman.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Donna Cansfield" <dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto David Zimmer" <dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto David Caplan" <dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Bas Balkissoon" <bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "Lawrence Eisenberg" <meisenberg@cpso.on.ca>; "Jim Bell Diamond Taxi" <jimbell.diamondtaxicab@rogers.com>; "Hillel Gudes" <gingig@rogers.com>; "Councillor Suzan Hall" <councillor_hall@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Shelley Carroll" <councillor_carroll@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Sandra Bussin" <sbussin@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Ron Moeser" <councillor_moeser@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Raymond Cho" <councillor_cho@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Peter Milczyn" <councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Paula Fletcher" <councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Paul Ainslie" <councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Pam McConnell" <councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Norman Kelly" <councillor_kelly@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Michael Walker" <councillor_walker@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Michael Thompson" <councillor_thompson@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Michael Del Grande" <councillor_delgrande@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Mark Grimes" <councillor_grimes@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Maria Augimeri" <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Vice-Chair Denzil Minnan-Wong" <councillor_minnanwong@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Rob Ford" <councillor_ford@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Mike Feldman" <councillor_feldman@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S David Shiner" <councillor_shiner@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Chair Howard Moscoe" <councillor_moscoe@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Kyle Rae" <councillor_rae@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Karen Stintz" <councillor_stintz@toronto.ca>; "Councillor John Parker" <councillor_parker@toronto.ca>; "Councillor John Filion" <councillor_filion@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Joe Pantalone" <councillor_pantalone@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Joe Mihevc" <councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Janet Davis" <councillor_davis@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Gord Perks" <councillor_perks@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby" <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker" <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti" <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Frank Di Giorgio" <councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Frances Nunziata" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Douglas Holyday" <councillor_holyday@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Clifford Jenkins" <councillor_jenkins@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Chin Lee" <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Cesar Palacio" <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Case Ootes" <councillor_ootes@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Brian Ashton" <councillor_ashton@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Bill Saundercook" <councillor_saundercook@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Adam Vaughan" <councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Adam Giambrone" <councillor_giambrone@toronto.ca>; "Councillor A.A. Heaps" <councillor_heaps@toronto.ca>; "City Of Toronto Solicitor Michele A Wright" <mwright4@toronto.ca>; "City Of Toronto Mayor David Miller" <mayor_miller@toronto.ca>; "Andy Reti" <taximaven@rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:10 PM Subject: Pearson Airport Exemption Issue Premier McGuinty, To: I watched with interest on tonight's Global news about your comments on the Pearson Airport Exemption Issue. They were all totally false but one in particular was even beyond your usual nonsensical rhetoric
06/07/2012
Page 2 of 2
and that was your concern about environment issues.You stated it would increase emissions dramatically if the airline taxis and limousines had to return to Pearson Airport each and every time without a fare. Let me point out that the GTAA ( Greater Toronto Airport Authority ) has around 750 taxis and limousines that would be returning to the airport empty. The City of Toronto has 750 limousines and over 5,000 taxis that are presently returning from the airport without a fare. Where is the greater environmental issue? When you think how asinine McGuinty's comments are on environmental issues when compared to the lack of controls for emissions from the hundreds of airplanes that leave Pearson Airport each and every day, it shows just how far he is reaching on that one to try to divert anyone's attention to the political favouritism involved in this issue. Why is the province involved in this at all? You presently have legislation in three provincial Acts that deals with airport issues; the Ontario Municipal Act; the Ontario Highway Traffic Act and now the Toronto Act ( 2006 ). Why is your government assisting a private company, the GTAA who issue only permits that have no authority outside the confines of Pearson Airport, to secure additional business for their membership and also involve the province in policing the airport as well? If the GTAA cannot police the airport and take care of their clientele perhaps it is time for Federal Canada through Transport Canada to come in and take back the airport. It certainly is not yours or the provincial government's job to involve yourself at all in airport issues. If the GTAA is unwilling to give fair access to properly licensed Ontario transportation carriers, why are you giving them unfettered access to our markets? To that end I have forward this email to Prime Minister Harper as it is well overdue that his government look into a thirty year history of dirty politics involving a federal jurisdiction. Why are you contradicting your own point-of-pick-up legislation that guarantees the rights of municipalities to license their jurisdictions as they deem fit? If the cities you give these powers to cannot exercise them then why do we have licensing at all? Minister Watson says it is to give choice and I question that hypothesis. To give choice without protection is irresponsible to the taxi and livery public. The GTAA does no driver training or vehicle inspections so you are obviously falling short of the province's responsibilities in this area. Why only two and a half years later has your government reversed its promise to the Toronto taxi and livery industries that your government would not interfere with how Toronto ran its city with the enactment of the Toronto Act ( 2006 )? In the words of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the Honourable John Gerretsen, Toronto is a mature and responsible government capable of running their own affairs. I included that letter in this email. Has this changed? Are they or are they not mature and responsible? Can they or can they not license responsibly? Why the change Premier? Only one conclusion fits all the areas this issue covers and that is a political payoff by the airport interests who made heavy contributions over the past few years to the Liberal war chest and of course with the help of other provincial ministers such as Minister Harinder Takhar who prior to his provincial political career, made his living mostly from the airport transportation industry. It is well overdue that the Province of Ontario get out of the taxi and limousine business and get into the business you are mandated to do and that is give fair legislation to all Ontarians without back room politics and political favouritism. An Ontario citizen should be able to get just results from their elected representatives without having deep pockets to achieve that goal. I remain,
06/07/2012
Page 1 of 1
From: Sent: Subject:
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Monday, September 07, 2009 10:25 PM Fw: Pearson Airport Exemption
Premier McGuinty, What you and the provincial Liberal party have done to the hard working men and women in the Toronto taxi and livery industry is nothing short of larceny and the breaking of your government's promise to our membership in 2006. To allow Minister Watson, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing to put the exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) after your government guaranteed our membership this would never happen, is a pure abuse of government authority at an extreme financial hardship to our members and their families. This favours the few drivers from Pearson Airport while without provocation, punishing the thousands of drivers from Toronto. Any government's commitment to the electorate is to represent them all in a fair and just manner. Bringing in laws under three different provincial statutes to protect a private company's membership, the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) operating from Pearson Airport, at the expense of thousands of hard working Ontarians certainly plays against that mandate. Your observation of exhaust emissions and Minister Watson's comments of uninterrupted airport service are not only asinine without any factual backing but laughable at best. The only truism in this whole issue that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that you and your provincial Liberal party were bought and paid for by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority brokerages and drivers through rather hefty campaign donations to your party. The general public in Ontario are now learning just how corrupt and ineffective your government truly is. Your fingers have been caught in several pies such as e-health, Ontario lottery corporation, the airport exemption issue and God knows what else but I am sure there is plenty more that will eventually surface. The Liberal members from Toronto should not only be ashamed of themselves but should be immediately removed from their Queens Park seats. Not one of you had the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the 20,000 members of the Toronto taxi and livery industries, that you are alleged to represent, to try to protect them and their families and to have this injustice reversed, which would have once and for all laid a fair and level playing field for everyone involved in this issue. Our industry members and their spouses, children and relatives will have a very long memory when the time for voting on the next provincial government comes along. If any of you are not in jail when this occurs I can guarantee you we will work steadfastly in making sure you don't get re-elected. God does balance the books McGuinty and I guarantee you that you and your corrupt government are going to get your books balanced in the very near future.
06/07/2012
(06/11/2012) taxireview - Airport Exemption Follow-Up
Seite 1
From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, taxireview <tax... City Of Toronto Deputy City Manager John Livey <jlivey@toronto.ca>, City... 6/9/2012 10:37 AM Airport Exemption Follow-Up 7July09 Minister Watson Letter.pdf; 7Aug09 Minister Watson Letter on the Ex emption Issue.doc
Dear Tracey, I believe these two letters will also assist in your investigation into the Airport Exemption issue. It is very important that the City of Toronto stand-up for and protect all of the workers they license from unfair legislation regardless from what level of government that it is enacted. There is no logical reason that the City of Toronto cannot approach the Province with industry member involvement to have this injustice removed so that all taxi and livery drivers in the Province are treated the same as to the rules and regulations regarding their work areas, which presently does not occur. You will note the Minister Watson says he is committed in ensuring that the City of Toronto's use of powers and authorities are exercised in a fair manner, especially regarding taxi licensing. If he really believed that statement I would like to hear why he put the Airport Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006), which contradicted his own government's promise to our membership and the City of Toronto on the enactment of the Toronto Act (2006) where it was left out and especially when you couple it with the Province's long standing legislation on point-of pick-up for taxis anywhere in the Province. I also included my response to Minister Watson's letter to me. It is harsh but is a culmination of decades of frustrations dealing with this issue where I and all of the Toronto taxi and limousine industry members are sick and tired of listening to innuendoes and lies coming from the Province on this issue and their lack of action to reverse this horrendous injustice so that our members can receive a fair and level playing field without the present working discrimination that we face on a day-to-day basis. Our membership has a myriad of documentation and over three decades of experience dealing with this issue and would like to work with the City of Toronto to format a plan of action to approach Queens Park in having all legislation removed from Provincial Statutes that deals with the Airport Exemption anywhere in the Province so we do not have to face this coming through the back door in the future. To our membership it appears illogical that the Province has legislation in three Provincial Statutes that deals with AIRPORT EXEMPTIONS CONSIDERING AIRPORTS COME UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION and when you apply common law practises, those Provincial statutes would appear to be without effect as they have no authority to enact any laws when it comes to federally governed jurisdictions. We look forward to the review process that is presently happening in our industry to recommend a combined industry and city effort to deal with this long-standing and unfair issue. If we are successful with this endeavour, many of the now outstanding concerns within our industry would disappear as
(06/11/2012) taxireview - Airport Exemption Follow-Up
Seite 2
millions of lost dollars in revenues would return to Toronto's taxi and livery industries thus making those issues a moot point.
I remain,
Gerry Manley 416-948-1921
7 August 2009 Honourable Jim Watson Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing 777 Bay St. 17th Floor Toronto Ontario M5G 2E5 Minister Watson, It has come to the attention of the Toronto taxi and livery industries that your rationale for putting the Airport Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) was to give the citizens of Toronto choice as to what taxi or livery carrier they wished to use when going to Pearson Airport. I am afraid you will have to do a little better than that Minister Watson. This reasoning will have little affect on covering up your actions and blatant untruths on this issue. Even the most uninformed member of our industry is well aware of the reality in why you did this and it had little to with public choice of transportation carriers but a lot to do with backroom politics. We know who is behind this and why, as well as the political contributions that bought this decision. If you truly believed this was why you did this, and of course we know it wasnt, then it must be pointed out that you breached long established political protocols during this process. It is well known that any level of government, before laws are changed, must give every major stakeholder an opportunity to speak on the issues. Seeing as this law change is occurring during your tenure as the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, I am curious why the Toronto taxi and livery industries were not invited or allowed to speak on this issue directly to you or to Ministry representatives? I am also curious why you would reverse your own governments previous decision on this issue? Were you instructed by a higher up authority to do this or was there external pressure brought to bear? You have breached the public trust here and that makes you no better than the worst criminal and you should be held accountable for your actions. This was a whole new ball game here Minister Watson and the meetings held previously on this issue obviously have no affect on the present outcome as you totally reversed the previous standing law thus public meetings with all major stakeholders is mandatory. You want to have the public able to make a choice on this, correct? May I point out to you that the Toronto taxi and livery clients when arriving at Pearson Airport do not have that same choice unless they or the driver that is picking them up pays a $13.00 pre-paid fee? This also applies to all other surrounding Pearson Airport jurisdictions with the exception of Mississauga who have a bevy of exemptions that were granted by your Ministry.
If you truly cared about public choices, you would have gone to the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) and told them, not asked them, that if they did not give the same considerations to all surrounding jurisdictions of Pearson Airport that the exemption would be removed from the Municipal Act as well as now the Toronto Act (2006), which by the way should have never been put into these Acts, and the section under the Ontario Highway Traffic Act would also be removed. You would then defer to the long established point-ofpick-up legislation that is contained in the Municipal Act; the Act that governs all jurisdictions in Ontario and is the bible in this area as far as your Ministry is concerned. What I suggested in the previous paragraph is the only way to make it fair for the taxi and livery drivers operating in the jurisdictions surrounding Pearson Airport. Basically said, you pick up only in the jurisdiction you are licensed in and if the fare takes you outside the boundaries of your jurisdiction then you must return to your area before you can pick up again. Why should the airport drivers be able to pick up in any jurisdiction to go back to the airport where we are not afforded the same considerations? This would give the taxi and livery using public the true choices that you portray you want, not the exemption that currently is part of the Municipal Act of Ontario and now through your efforts, the Toronto Act (2006). Also note that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that your beloved airport drivers breach the exemption bylaw on a daily basis. Do you really think they only take the runs back to Pearson that they are legally now allowed to do? If you do, then you are more naive and ill informed than I believe you are. They pay off doormen at hotels and sit in front of office towers and take any high-end fare that walks out the door. Because of logistics and lack of manpower, it is almost impossible for the City of Toronto to enforce their bylaws on this issue. Much easier at Pearson as it is a confined area and your government through the Ontario Highway Traffic Act has put the noose even tighter around our necks on pick-ups at the airport. You need to re-think your actions on this issue and live up to your mandate as an elected official, which is to represent all people in the province of Ontario in a fair and just manner. This would require you to totally remove the exemption from the Municipal Act and the Toronto Act (2006) as well. There is little doubt that you are falling far short of your responsibilities and you should be ashamed of yourself for fronting the airport interests while causing so much financial hardships to so many other Ontario transportation workers. You are allowing the airport interests to fill their pockets at the expense of other jurisdictions transportation members who are finding it nearly impossible to earn a living in our industry to support themselves and their families.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Fw: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: Tracey Cook taxireview 6/11/2012 9:34 AM Fw: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
DearTracey, OneadditionalandfinalpointfornowontheAirportExemptionissuesandalloftheotherissuesyouandyourstaffarepresentlydealingwithinyour reformationmeetingsinvestigationsandreportstocommitteeistopointourSection#15oftheCharter,EqualityRights. ThetwomajorpointsnotbefollowedbytheProvinceofOntarioinregardtotheAirportExemptioninthissectionandisaviolationoftheCharteringoing forwardontheAirportExemptionissueaswellasmustbeadheredtoinwhatyourstaffrecommendsandwhatcommitteeandcouncilfinallybringforward andpassesinregardtotheTorontotaxiindustryisandIquote"EveryindividualhastherighttoEQUALPROTECTIONandEQUALBENEFITofthelawwithout DISCRIMINATION." GerryManley Phone:(416)9481921 Email:gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website:http://www.taxidriversafety.net
06/11/2012
(06/11/2012) taxireview - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Seite 1
From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca> City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S C... 6/9/2012 11:30 AM Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.pdf
Dear Tracey, One additional and final point for now on the Airport Exemption issues and all of the other issues you and your staff are presently dealing with in your reformation meetings investigations and reports to committee is to point our Section #15 of the Charter, Equality Rights. The two major points not be followed by the Province of Ontario in regard to the Airport Exemption in this section and is a violation of the Charter in going forward on the Airport Exemption issue as well as must be adhered to in what your staff recommends and what committee and council finally bring forward and passes in regard to the Toronto taxi industry is and I quote "Every individual has the right to EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL BENEFIT of the law without DISCRIMINATION."
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 [Enacted by the Canada Act 1982 [U.K.] c.11; proclaimed in force April 17, 1982. Amended by the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 1983, SI/84-102, effective June 21, 1984. Amended by the Constitution Amendment, 1993 [New Brunswick], SI/93-54, Can. Gaz. Part II, April 7, 1993, effective March 12, 1993.] Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IN CANADA. 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association.
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html (1 of 11)18/09/2007 6:12:25 PM
Democratic Rights
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
MAXIMUM DURATION OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES / Continuation in special circumstances. 4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members. (2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
ANNUAL SITTING OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES. 5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
Mobility Rights
MOBILITY RIGHTS OF CITIZENS / Right to move and gain livelihood / Limitation / Affirmative action programs. 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services. (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who were socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
Legal Rights
LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON. 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
SEARCH OR SEIZURE. 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
DETENTION OR IMPRISONMENT. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
ARREST OR DETENTION. 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if
the detention is not lawful.
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL AND PENAL MATTERS. 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; (f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT. 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
SELF-INCRIMINATION. 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
INTERPRETER. 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Equality Rights
EQUALITY BEFORE AND UNDER LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND BENEFIT OF LAW / Affirmative action programs. 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Official Languages of Canada

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF CANADA / Official languages of New Brunswick / Advancement of status and use. 16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. (2) English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the legislature and government of New Brunswick. (3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
ENGLISH AND FRENCH LINGUISTIC COMMUNITES IN NEW BRUNSWICK / Role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick. 16.1 (1) The English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions
and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities. (2) The role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the status, rights and privileges referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed.
PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT / Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature. 17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament. (2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick.
PARLIAMENTARY STATUTES AND RECORDS / New Brunswick statutes and records. 18. (1) The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative. (2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative.
PROCEEDINGS IN COURTS ESTABLISHED BY PARLIAMENT / Proceedings in New Brunswick courts. 19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament. (2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.
COMMUNICATIONS BY PUBLIC WITH FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS / Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions. 20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or (b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French. (2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
CONTINUATION OF EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. 21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES PRESERVED. 22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Charter with respect to any language that is not English or French.
Minority Language Educational Rights

LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTION / Continuity of language instruction / Application where numbers warrant. 23. (1) Citizens of Canada (a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority of the province in which they reside, or (b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province, have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary language instruction in the same language. (3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province (a) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and (b) includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
Enforcement
ENFORCEMENT OF GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS / Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute. 24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances. (2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
General
ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER. 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal people of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
OTHER RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS NOT AFFECTED BY CHARTER. 26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
MULTICULTURAL HERITAGE. 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
RIGHTS GUARANTEED EQUALLY TO SEXES. 28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
RIGHTS RESPECTING CERTAIN SCHOOLS PRESERVED. 29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
APPLICATION TO TERRITORIES AND TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES. 30. A reference in this Charter to a province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be.
LEGISLATIVE POWERS NOT EXTENDED. 31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
Application of Charter
APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER / Exception. 32. (1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force. [Section 32 came into force on April 17, 1982; therefore, section 15 had effect on April 17, 1985.]
EXCEPTION WHERE EXPRESS DECLARATION / Operation of exception / Five year limitation / Reenactment / Five year limitation. 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration. (3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration. (4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1). (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
Citation
CITATION. 34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
EFC
11 December 2011 Mr. John Duffy Publisher Toronto Taxi News Dear John, As you are aware, the latest roundtable discussions to reform Torontos taxi industry began with the meeting at Cedarbrook Community Center this past Thursday. It was very evident that Toronto city hall staff had put a lot of effort into facilitating this meeting and I am sure that all attendees were appreciative of that effort. I would suggest that if a meeting such as this is conducted in the future that a different venue be considered. I could hardly hear the person next to me, as there was a lot of noise emulating from the entire room. The City had provided city staff facilitators for each table to take notes and help with the discussion process. A very could idea and helpful but unfortunately not every table had one. It was refreshing not to hear any animosity as in past meetings such as a Councillor for example at one of our previous meetings telling one of members if he did not like what was occurring in the industry then perhaps he should go and flip burgers. The meeting was cordial and a great deal of information was discussed but was this just more smoke and mirrors coming from city hall as in the past or will Councillors and staff really listen and adopt industry input? I would like to point out some things that perhaps the meeting attendees and all of our industrys membership may or may not have considered and at the end of my report you may make your own conclusions. The meeting itself did not adhere to the letter that was sent out. The Citys invitation letter specifically said that it was an industry workshop for industry representatives to discuss and identify industry issues and provide suggestions on how the City could conduct a review. This begs the question as to why were representatives other than industry members invited to this meeting such as police, union and association, disabled community etc.? Yes there is a need to consult with these groups but they should not have any input on how we conduct our review or the topics discussed. The meeting was by invitation only to more or less set the agenda not to discuss the issues yet there were non-invited industry members that showed up and were allowed to participate and some issues got into the discussion phase. Our industry membership need to understand that this and subsequent other meetings and workshops are not done solely out of the kindness of Toronto city hall. The Province mandates major stakeholder meetings be held when the City makes any major changes in any area under their privy and this is no exception. Councillor Palacio, the Chair of the Licensing & Standards started off the meeting by saying the City is committed to making these meetings open and transparent but is that really true? Consider the following.
A common tactic used by governments and big business when setting parameters for general meetings such as the one we attended last Thursday is to bring an agenda already started so the attendees will focus on their agenda without bringing forward any other issues that the meeting facilitator may not want to discuss. Yes the agenda items they had printed on their sheets are important to the industry but have already been brought to the Citys attention and will be discussed at future meetings. Individuals and groups have lobbied these particular concerns to death at city hall over the past several months as they address hidden agendas that will be beneficial to them but not necessarily the entire industry. Because of that ploy, almost all tables discussed primarily those agenda items the City brought forward and little time was spent on other issues that are just as important to our members. If the City was going to be clear and transparent there should not have been any suggestive topics listed and then other issues would have been brought forward as their tactic gives all the appearance that they believe these are the most important and perhaps the only topics they are truly interested in discussing. One of the most glaring and unnecessary agenda items was conversion to a dedicated vehicle. Other than Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong who is no longer a member of the L&S Committee, no other city hall or industry member is even remotely interested in having a dedicated vehicle for many obvious reasons. So why is this even on the agenda list? The future will tell if their promise to address all industry concerns will be adhered to. Their on-line survey asks you to list your three most important issues to be discussed. I do not believe that is a fair and transparent way to conduct this survey. Although lower down in the survey you can list other issues that concern you, there is no guarantee they or even your first three choices will ever make the discussion table even though they may have an industry impact if not resolved. At the review in 1998 most of the points brought forward were by the City, not our membership and added up to over seventy points of which well over fifty were finally adopted. I believe we have at least that many if not more issues that need attention but the time frame set by Committee to have staff table a report with recommendations by the second quarter of 2012 is not nearly enough time to address all of our concerns. The taxi by-law itself is in need of a complete re-write and that alone would more than eat up this time frame. The focus of the 8 December 2011 meeting by most of the attendees was the Ambassador issue and to get those plates made standard plates and all other issues appeared to take a back burner position. This approach will not get us to the resolution stage of all of our issues never mind the end result if that conversion was ever adopted. To adopt this conversion could have the potential of completely destroying the possibility of taxi drivers to make a living with the added drivers, up to 1400, that would appear driving Toronto taxis in an industry already over stocked with taxis, drivers and attempting to survive in a depressed economy that has seen our usage dramatically drop in most areas. Regardless of what certain individuals such as some brokerage operators, union or association representatives tell you, there is one issue and one issue only that is of paramount importance to all taxi drivers who drive our streets each and every day to earn a living and that is There are too many taxis licensed in the City of Toronto. If the City does not come to the discussion table committed to reducing the size of our present fleet, most of the other concerns we need to resolve will become redundant.
The City must conduct an impartial economic impact study and come up with a fair and responsible licensing issuing formula. The arbitrary issuance of taxi and taxi drivers licenses of any kind must cease immediately until these steps have been taken. No longer can the City take the position that taxi service to the public is their primary and only concern in the multitude of outstanding issues that remain unresolved in the Toronto taxi industry. Without a healthy and viable taxi industry customer need and service cannot be achieved, as one is reliant on the other. It is important to point that the agenda items brought forward by the City are repeats from the 1998 reformation and the people pushing for them are for the most part the same people who pushed for them in 1998. The reason we have to deal with them again is the initial resolve of 1998 did not meet their expectations. If the City does not take the time to look back over the past fifty years of mistakes made in this industry, there will be no guarantee that what they will come up with will be any different. It has all the appearance to me that the previous five decades dont even exist as far as the City is concerned and that we are starting fresh from December 8, 2011 and I can tell you, that approach will not work. I have attended most major industry meetings for almost forty years now with mixed emotions. My heart tells me each and every time that maybe this time the City will do the right thing for our industry but then my industry experience, common sense and gut feelings take over telling me that the same old dog and pony show will be the final result and to be honest with you, that has not changed this time around either. I believe that the citys position will not included reducing their revenues, which would occur in a necessary fleet reduction and that will clearly show the Citys lack of concern as to whether taxi drivers make a viable living or not. It will be a daunting task for city hall to responsibly resolve many of our industrys outstanding issues and I dont believe they will achieve any reasonable or responsible level of success. My challenge to city hall is to prove me wrong. Show our industry and all taxi consumers you will not repeat the same mistakes as your predecessors and carry on with the same old same old in not resolving this industrys dilemmas because in four years there will probably someone else on the L&S Committee and they can deal with it.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley 416-948-1921
1 May 2012 Mr. John Duffy Publisher, Taxi News Toronto Ontario Dear John, If someone would take on the daunting task of making a movie or writing a play about the Toronto taxi industry I am sure it would be called Hopeless in Hog Town. Every time you turn the corner in this industry, there is another issue of unfairness and questionable legality. The Citys Refresher and CPR/First-Aid courses undoubtedly fit these categories. The mandated attendance at these courses is discriminatory at the very least. Other than taxi and livery owners and drivers, there is not one other individual that holds a city business license that is required to attend a Refresher or CPR/First Aid course. When checking 545-2 (A) License Requirements I would think that the license holders as described in sections (10), (16), (17), (20), (27), (31), (37), (40), (44), (47), (50), (52), (60), (61), (62), & (63) to name a few, would necessitate Refresher and/or CPR/First Aid training courses well before a taxi or livery owner or driver just in the sheer number of people they deal with, which is more in their average day than what an individual owner or driver in our industries would probably deal with in a week. 545-2 License Requirements A (9) states, Every owner and every driver of a cab. This is how we are defined in this industry and that classification is supposed to be applicable throughout this by-law but as you will see when reading this article, Municipal Licensing & Standards staff through the Toronto Licensing & Standards Committee has created different categories for taxi owners to suit their own purposes. For example under Article VIII Owners and Driver of Cabs, they violate 545-2 A(9) by stating, Driver- A driver of a cab who is licensed as such or required to be licensed as such under this chapter, and includes, an owner who drives a cab. They have in affect arbitrarily made an owner a driver for the purpose of this section of the by-law to make sure they have to attend the Refresher and CPR/First Aid courses as described in Article VIII. To make it even worse, they have exempted the non-driver taxi owner from attending the CPR/First Aid course therefore in my opinion, illegally splitting the standard owners category as described in 545-2 A (9), which amounts to creating a third category for the purposes of Article VIII, which by the way is not even included in the wording of this section but is just capriciously done by the MLS.
I contacted Mr. Bruce Robertson for an explanation and interpretation of why there are additional definitions and applications for taxi owners in Article VIII that are not seen anywhere else in the by-law. He responded by saying, I cant speak for the reasons why, but I can tell you that By-law 67-80 in 1980 added it to the definition of a driver. I suspect the intent was to make sure owners who drive their taxicabs were included in the various provisions that apply to drivers. Mr. Robertsons assessment suits the purposes as to what the City wants to do but the definition for taxi owners and drivers is very distinct in License Requirements 545-2 A (9) stating Every owner and every taxi driver, not a combination of both. That section does not give any additional definitions for taxi owners and is supposed to be the overriding and defining licensing classification of a taxi owner for the purpose of this by-law. Until the categorization in this section is changed, then the description of a taxi owner/driver as portrayed in Article VIII should be considered without effect. If you believe that assessment is incorrect, then you must consider that Article VIII states taxi owners, for the purpose of this section are considered taxi drivers. The City cannot have it both ways. We are either taxi owners or taxi drivers as described in 545-2 A (9), not a combination of both to suit the Citys purpose of commanding attendance at courses leading to the extraction of additional licensing fees. I would ask all the readers of taxi news to consider the following and then tell me whether you feel the following is fair. The 3-day refresher course charge is included in the taxi drivers annual renewal fee of $310.22. As a standard plate owner, I pay an annual licensing fee of $1,174.66, which is almost 4 times the fee of the taxi driver yet a 2-day additional refresher course charge of $120 is applied to taxi owners but not the taxi driver. Regardless of how this is viewed, it is grossly unfair and obvious to anyone of ordinary care and judgment to be nothing more than licensing cash grab of mammoth proportion. Although part of the licensing by-law for many years, taxi owner appearance at the refresher course was never initiated. A few years ago the City decided to make owners attend this course and I was invited to and attended a two-day workshop to give input into a module that had been created for the standard plate owners refresher course. I noted at that time the course for the most part, was nothing more than going over the by-law. I recommended the attendance at this course was unnecessary considering the by-law is available on-line and the vast majority of our members have computers at home. Whatever else was discussed other than by-law requirements, amounted to nothing more than common sense. Today, I completed my mandated refresher course and in my opinion, there was no appreciable gain of knowledge that supported any logical reason for my attendance. Over the almost 40 years I have been active in the Toronto taxi industry on a day-today basis, it is my contention I have gained knowledge on the job that has made me a reasonably successful taxi owner/operator thus negating any rational reason for me to attend a refresher course. My required attendance did not enhance my customer service skills, increase my knowledge of the taxi by-law or lead me to put any additional revenues in my pocket. 2
On 24 March 2012, I completed my mandated One-Day (1-Day) First Aid/CPR Training Course and came to the conclusion that this course was even more unnecessary than the refresher course. Consider the following. There is no legal obligation to apply first aid to our customers and coming in physical contact with an injured person could put the taxi drivers health in danger, as we are not equipped to deal with diseases that could be transmitted through the air or blood spills originating from the injured person. Taxis are not furnished with a defibulator or do we have ready access to one and are not equipped with a competent first aid kit. The cost to equip each taxi with the necessary equipment would be in excess of $1,500 per taxi, which I am sure the City would not pay for but would pass that expense on to the taxi owner, never mind the cost of required continual maintenance. Many of our drivers are prohibited by cultural or religious decrees/or beliefs to even look at a bare body of the opposite sex so the application of a defibulator in those cases is out of the question. The message that our instructors gave out time and time again was to make sure we call 911 for most emergency cases we come in contact with. That is a reasonable thing to expect from a taxi driver and is done by every driver I know of but to expect our drivers to do more is unrealistic and dangerous. Taxi drivers and owners are required to take this course because of their contact with the general public in their workplace. This shows a bias towards our industry members. A Toronto Transportation Commission driver of a bus, streetcar or subway for example comes in contact with more people in one run of his/her daily shift than a taxi driver sees in one month, yet they are not mandated to take a Refresher Course or a First Aid/CPR Course. In the almost 40 years I have been a Toronto taxi/owner operator, I have not nor have I heard of a taxi driver administering any first aid to a client nor would I expect them to do so other than calling for emergency (911) assistance.
There is also some confusion on the Important Notice that is sent out to inform you when you have to take the First Aid/CPR course. By-law S. 545-131 (B) (b) does not state once every three (3) years as in the Notice, but states once every four consecutive years. They actually mean one in the same thing depending on when you renew your licence but it might be advisable to have the Notice state what is actually in the by-law to stop any misunderstanding. The costs of the courses, HST and three (3) days of lost wages, have personally cost me between $650.00 and $750.00, which will be very hard to recoup in the depressed economic climate that presently faces all industry members. These courses are nothing more than licensing cash grabs that help support staffs wages at not only the taxi school but the people running the First Aid/ CPR course as well. I do not believe it is the position of our industry members to take on the responsibility of financing any additional City of Toronto employment through a mandated attendance at needless City of Toronto courses. 3
I would ask for the $120.00 plus HST course fee be returned to me as I am categorized for the purpose of these courses as a taxi driver not a taxi owner and a taxi drivers annual license renewal fee covers the refresher course cost, but good luck with that one. I would also request someone at Toronto City hall use some common sense and have the totally unnecessary refresher and first aid course requirements immediately removed from the by-law as the only prevailing thing it does manage to accomplish is to further put our drivers and owners in a more precarious financial position. Instead of teaching HTA and bylaw traffic requirements, which by the way as a licensed driver in this province I am deemed to know, why dont you emulate their program? When their license is issued, they do not require me to take a Refresher and/or First Aid/ CPR course ever, even though I may drive thousands of people during my lifetime. They do require a retest when I reach 80, which is something you may consider if I am still driving taxi at that time. Their approach is that I am supposed to know all applicable laws in regards to driving and vehicle safety. If I violate those laws I am issued a ticket to appear in answer to the alleged violation. Perhaps you might contemplate this and do likewise instead of costing our members millions of dollars in mandated attendance at, for the most part, useless courses. Councillor Palacio has publicly stated that the ongoing reformation meetings are going to be transparent and all issues will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. Well Councillor if that is the case, then lets tell the real reasons why these courses were initiated in the first place and it was not for the benefit of the consumer or the industry member as the end results of these courses can easily be proven as pointless because the final outcome and application is insignificant at best. The true reasons these courses came about is someone at Toronto City Hall believed it was the politically correct thing to do and the second and most logical reason is to carry on city halls history of using the Toronto taxi industry as a licensing cash cow that helps support the MLS mandated budget requirements. Our industrys licensing contributions are around $10,000,000 annually, which amounts to approximately 65% of MLSs required operating revenues yet it is doubtful that the Toronto taxi industry receives 65% of the MLSs manpower as required by an Ontario provincial statute. I have submitted this article for Taxi News mainly for our memberships edification and I would recommend they do as I have done, which is to write, email or phone not only the MLS Committee members but also Mayor Ford and their councillors that sit on city council to have these totally unjustified and ludicrous courses removed from the by-law thus negating the requirement of our membership to have to attend them. I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 1
05/02/2012
Page 1 of 3
05/02/2012
Page 2 of 3
05/02/2012
Page 3 of 3

05/02/2012
Page 1 of 2
05/02/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/02/2012
Page 1 of 3
05/02/2012
Page 2 of 3
05/02/2012
Page 3 of 3
05/02/2012

I remain,
Gerald H. Manley 3


Links
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001,c32 (O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01o32_e.htm Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c 11 (A.O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm Ontario Regulation 191/11 Definitions Section 33 Scroll Down to Taxicab http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1 Ontario Regulation 429/07 Schedule 2 Section 5 http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1
15 February 2012
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley

It was also suggested that to become compliant with the Act, a final decision by the City of Toronto should be forthcoming by no later than December 2011 and be implemented by the first mandated taxicab DOT inspections in January 2012. To this date, there is not one recommendation implemented.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley 3


Links
Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001 S.O. 2001,c32 (O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_01o32_e.htm
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c 11 (A.O.D.A.) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_05a11_e.htm
Ontario Regulation 191/11 Definitions Section 33 Scroll Down to Taxicab http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1
Ontario Regulation 429/07 Schedule 2 Section 5 http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1

Gerald H. Manley
Gerald H. Manley
Gerald H. Manley
(05/03/2012) taxireview - Toronto Taxi Major Stakeholders Meetings
Seite 1
From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: To All,
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "Taxi News" <john@taxinews.com> "ML&S Manager Policy & Planning Services Mr. Rudi Czekalla" <rczekal@tor... 12/11/2011 11:21 AM Toronto Taxi Major Stakeholders Meetings 11Dec11 Taxi News Letter On 8Dec11 Industry Meeting.doc
I have attached an open letter outlining our initial and upcoming meetings on this subject matter. I am requesting that all city councillors and the mayor's office take a pro-active position on this issue. I respect the fact that the mayor and councillors cannot possibly be involved in all matters coming from committee but this is a unique case. For almost five decades now council has rubber stamped recommendations coming from the L&S Committee without realizing the harm it has inflicted on the Toronto taxi industry and the patrons they service. It is time for you to stop the carnage and truly represent the industry members as well as all taxi users who live in each and every riding in this city. We need your help and expertise in resolving numerous outstanding concerns that are occurring daily in the Toronto taxi industry. Get involved !!!!! Talk to our industry members that live in your ridings as well as the taxi using public so that when the eventual recommendations for change in the city's taxi industry reach city council to be adopted, you will take a serious look at the report from an educated perspective thus stopping the rubber stamping process that has been occurring in our industry for too many years. Gerry Manley 105 Rowena Drive, Suite 405 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3A 1R2 Tel: (416) 948-1921 Fax: (416) 441-9593 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Web Site: www.taxidriversafety.net
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Bill #26 Savings & Restructuring Act (1996)
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca> 4/30/2012 5:04 PM Bill #26 Savings & Restructuring Act (1996) 28Aug06 Minister Gerretsen's Guarantee No Provincial Interference.pdf; 1978 Bill 195 and 173 Point of Pick Up Legislation.pdf
Dear Tracey, Here is a question I have for you that so far, no one at City Hall or the Province has been able to answer. When the last reformation was completed and implemented in 1998, it could not be done until the Province under this Act, gave its permission, which it eventually did. Since that time the Toronto Act (2006) has come into being and I am wondering whether the City still has to get the Province's permission to make changes after this reformation completes or does the powers in the Toronto Act (2006) negate the need of provincial approval. Because I am into my, hmmmmm refresher course requirements, a letter to follow, I may not be able to attend the meetings you have scheduled for issues outside the City's control and that is another reason in mentioning the Toronto Act (2006) in regard to the Airport Exemption. Yes, any City bylaw is trumped by the Provincial Statute but the City has never formally on behalf of our entire membership made enquiries to or asked the Premier for a meeting with the Mayor, L&S Committee Chair, Executive Director of MLS and industry members to discuss this most serious issue, which we would like to have, that has cost our members around one and a half billion dollars in lost revenues in very unfair legislation. It is also very important from the City's perspective as it violates the Province's promise that the City is alleged to be a mature and responsible government capable of handling all of their own affairs. They interceded by putting the Airport Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) after they had promised not to and initially left it out. So as you can see, there are steps that can be taken by the City on issues that are out of their jurisdiction to at least try to get a fair and level playing field for all. The present Attorney General for the Province of Ontario is the Honourable John Gerretsen, who at the time the Toronto Act (2006) was written and enacted was the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing. His P/A at the time was the Honourable Brad Duguid, an ex City of Toronto councillor who sat on the L&S Committee who with Minister Gerretsen made those promises on behalf of the present sitting government to leave the Airport Exemption out of the Toronto Act (2006). I have included his letter to me on the subject matter. To further point out the unfairness of this legislation, I have also included the Province's guidelines for drop off and pick up by taxis in the Province, which the Airport Exemption also violates. It seems more than strange that the province has legislated laws regarding a federal jurisdiction in three separate pieces of legislation. One is the Municipal Act of Ontario, Toronto Act (2006) and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, so as you can see there are plenty of openings for the City to go to the province and fight this injustice on behalf of our membership. I sat on a committee from 2002 to 2006 with Mr. Hillel Gudes and Mr. Andy Reti to achieve the Airport Exemption being left out of the Toronto Act (2006) until the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Minister Watson arbitrarily wrote the Airport Exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) without holding any major stakeholders meetings thus violating what they say cities and municipalities must do before legislation can be enacted. You can see there is more than enough data that can be brought forward by the City to the Province to have this injustice against our membership removed without telling us you have no authorities to do anything about this senior statute issue. Get us the meeting as I personally would like to sit at a table and have Premier McGuinty look our members in the eye and tall us why he allowed Minister Watson to do this after his government had promised us it would not be put into the Toronto Act (2006) through both Minister Gerretsen and Minister Duguid.
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 1
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 3 of 3

05/17/2012
Page 1 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 3 of 3
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 2
From: To:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: 3/9/2012 8:03 PM Subject: Taxi Reformation Meetings CC: City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, ML&S Director Of Licensing Services Bruce Robertson <brobert1@toronto.ca>, ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, Taxi News <john@taxinews.com>
Councillor Palacio, Attending the city hall meeting today, it has become rather obvious that your words of a clear and transparent review are just that, words. It is common knowledge that private meetings with Staff and Councillors have already occurred. What is transparent about that? No private audiences on any industry issue should have been granted prior to these meetings as the greater majority of the industry was not made privy as to what those discussions were all about. The industry was promised meetings for each separate group as it will be confrontational on some points for us to meet all together. A meeting at the end of the review with representatives from each group could then be held to see if there is any common ground for the entire industry to bring forward their points. Other than taxi drivers, that promise has been broken. I have spent a great deal of personal time to research, write and bring forward industry issues for this review that also included some viable solutions to resolve them with the hope this might be the time the City will finally do the right thing. Today certainly showed me how foolish that idea was and how naive I was to believe that actually might happen. In my opinion, this was a waste of my time and that time should have been put to better use. As well as having a great disappointment on how City hall has conducted itself so far at these meeting, I am just as disappointed in the lack of industry involvement. Today there were maybe 45 or 50 industry members attending out of 12,000? We had more staff at this meeting than members. I don't believe that our membership deserves the hard work and time put in by a few of their fellow members trying to make this industry better when they do not want to spend one-second of time or one-penny of personal resources to help. I noted on Consultation 1 Planning Phase Summary, there was little done in regard to planning. The power point presentation went right into industry issues of yours and staff's choice, not the choice of all of our members. Where in this particular consultation, 9 March 2012 did it say we were going to discuss any issue? It was supposed to be a review of information gathered in the planning stage and discussion of how the review will be conducted, not to discuss any issue at this particular meeting. The City again going out of format and proceeding with what they want done. It is very easy to talk the talk but a lot harder to walk the walk. Do you not think you should stick to what you tell us is going to occur at each particular meeting rather than arbitrarily changing it? Also the guarantee of being able to discuss any issue at any meeting did not come to fruition. The facilitator at our table and three other tables I checked believed as I did, we were supposed to stick to the two points described on the power point presentation and when other issues were raised we were asked to stick with the two points of the power point presentation. Another broken promise by the City. If you had taken the time to really seek industry input I am confident you would find that the Ambassador issue might not be the number one issue. Considering we have over 10,000 taxi drivers, 3,480 standard plate owners along with Accessible operators, I believe there would be other issues we feel are even more important than the Ambassador issue not withstanding it is important.This meeting was nothing more than a repeat of the December 11 meeting. The City comes to a meeting with its own agenda at both meetings where the meetings were supposedly being held to format an agenda. I have sent this email to the taxi review requesting my name be taken off the meeting dates I requested as it rather obvious the City will do what they want when they want and little to no consideration will be given to industry members when all is said and done. By me attending these meetings so far is shame on you for not sticking to your own agenda formats and breaking your promises, but for me to attend any more meetings knowing you will continue on in the same manner would be shame on me and I will assure you that will not occur. Although I feel all my hard work will fall on deaf ears in the long-term, you may use my input in any manner you deem is appropriate. I certainly will monitor what occurs and will be looking at all the final resolves and if I feel there has not been a fairness given to all industry members then I will seek that justice in other areas.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings _ Standard Taxi Owners
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca> 3/5/2012 6:10 PM Taxi Reformation Meetings _ Standard Taxi Owners ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, ML&S Director Of Licensing Services Bruce Robertson <brobert1@toronto.ca>, Taxi News <john@taxinews.com>, taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Attachments: 2012 Standard Plate Owners Agenda re Major Stakeholders Meetings.doc
Councillor Palacio, Prior to the actual start of the reformation meetings, all industry members were assured by both politicians and bureaucrats alike that when the meetings began, individual meetings would be set up for each individual group to ascertain what their issues were and to get input on how to resolve them. The Consultation meeting schedule does not reflect that promise. There are only 2 meetings set aside for taxi drivers and no meetings for standard taxi owners, ambassador owners or "W" plate operators. All of the aforementioned groups believe it is of paramount importance that each individual group be given their own time as to do otherwise would almost assuredly lead to at the very least, verbal confrontation as there are wide differences in some of the issues that need discussion. Perhaps at the end of the individual meetings you might find it beneficial to have representatives from each group meet and see if there is any common gerund on issues that can be brought forward on behalf of the entire industry. Over the past several days I have taken the time to contact numerous people in the groups I mentioned and they all agree that the individual meetings are mandatory if their point of view is to be heard. I have attached an Agenda that reflects what the standard plate owners and operators would like to see discussed and I am sure it parallels what the other groups that have yet to be given the required meetings would want to discuss as well. We feel that 2 meetings for each group, as set up for the drivers, is necessary and perhaps the 2 meetings could be held as you have done with some of the other groups, being one A.M. And one P.M.meeting on the same day. In this way perhaps my suggested agenda could be split in to those 2 meetings with time left over in the second meeting to discuss other issues that are not included but maybe of importance to a member in each group. I will bring this idea and my agenda recommendations forward at the 9 March 2012 meeting for consideration. Our groups feel that this is the only way to go to get all the data out in the open without the confrontation that would occur if everyone is in the same room at the same time with entirely different ideas on how to fix certain issues.
05/17/2012
Seite 1
From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: Taxi Review,
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio... 3/1/2012 7:53 PM Your Submissions 1March12 Mayor Ford Letter On PVT.docx
Thank you for your response. My taxi driver enquiry was spurred on by Toronto Municipal Code Licensing Article VIII owners and drivers of Cabs 545-130 definitions "As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated - Driver - A driver of a cab who is licensed as such or required to be licensed as such under this chapter, "And includes an owner who drives a cab." I would strongly suggest that to avoid confrontation that you also hold separate meetings for all individual groups as on some points we are far apart and confrontation would be inevitable. Little will be accomplished if we are all in the same major stakeholder's meeting rooms at the same time discussing those issues. Perhaps after the initial individual meetings another meeting could be facilitated to have representation from all of the groups to meet and see if there is common ground that a unified approach could be achieved to bring forward to staff, committee and council. I will not be able to attend the 1 May 2012 meeting, which by the way for your information is not personal but "Private Vehicle Tax" as I have to attend the mandated refresher course but have submitted enough documentation to prove the city has admitted they were wrong in assessing this tax to our owners as Mayor Miller's regime has already reimbursed one year of the taxi, 2010 and the 2008 and 2009 monies should also follow. I have included an email from the Mayor Ford about his decision to have this discussed at the reformation meetings although I do not understand what discussion is needed when it has already been accepted as being wrong from Toronto Council. I am sure the City will be hearing from the Ministry of Community and Social Services on the accessibility for disabled citizens issue within a week or so as I sent them an email s few days ago about the industry's concerns of being non-compliant to the Act. They sent me an email today saying that they have handed the file over to one of their investigators and I will hear back in a week to ten days. When that occurs I will forward their remarks to the review for consideration. Again unfortunately I have a previous commitments on both April 3 and April 16 but hopefully you will keep our membership abreast of what your intentions are to conform to the Act. There are several other issues that need to be discussed and resolved at these meetings that have yet to see the agenda list and you may be assured, I will make sure you are made aware of them at the meetings I attend and will hand in documentation for your consideration on all issues I have pointed out. You are presently in receipt of several letters already that I have sent you. It is important to me that all involved in the review and its process are aware that the submissions I have made, although many, are important and need to be addressed. I know from sources I have at city hall that I am looked on by some as a trouble maker and my submissions should not be
Seite 2
considered. Being looked on in that light to me is a compliment. In dealing with government at all levels for almost 50 years, I have seen other people categorized in the same way and in many instances they had issues that were legitimate and needed to be dealt with but the government did not want to deal with them and tried to discourage their validity or paint the person bringing them forward as a trouble maker or something even worse. I thank those people who have labelled me as a trouble maker as it shows me I am hitting some nerves and supports my theories that many of the issues I am bringing forward need attention and city hall doesn't want to deal with them. I can guarantee you, I am not going away until resolve comes to all outstanding industry issues regardless of how you categorize me. I drive most days and want a viable and healthy industry that must become that way for today, tomorrow and decades to come, long after I have gone. It took me 11 years for city hall to address taxi driver workplace safety even though I was told by the hierarchy of the time, it will never happen but I did manage to get it put in the by-law making our workplace safer than it ever was prior to the mandated legislation. I have never professed that I have all the answers to the dozens of outstanding concerns that our industry membership has but on the ones I do weigh in on, I will make you aware of the concern and give some viable solutions that are meant at the very least to spur on involvement and discussion with all stakeholders in our industry including Toronto City Hall. I want to take this opportunity to thank all staff at the review committee for their consideration in receiving my documentation and I hope that it truly makes a difference this time around. Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net From: taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:28:20 -0500 To: Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Subject: Your Submissions Hello Gerry, Thank you for your email suggestions. In response to your questions: * The Drivers-Only consultations are limited to licensees who possess a taxicab driver's licence, not those who possess taxicab Standard, Ambassador and Accessible owner's licences. The review team recognizes the importance of participation all licensees, including those with Standard, Ambassador and Accessible owner's licences, and invite them to participate in the other consultations in Phase 1, as well as through submitting online comments, emails, telephone messages and written submissions. Our website has been updated to be more clear on this point, thank you. * Personal vehicle tax will be included in the topics highlighted for discussion in the consultation on May 1, 2012; however, as expressed on the website, participants can submit ideas on any topic at any consultation. * Thank you for your comments regarding accessibility and compliance. We invite you to address them at the accessibility consultations on April 3rd
Seite 3
or April 16; even if you are unable to attend, we will address this issue. We appreciate your continued participation. Best regards, The 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Team Web Page: www.toronto.ca/taxireview <http://www.toronto.ca/taxireview> Email: taxireview@toronto.ca Comments Line: (416) 338-3095 TTY: (416) 338-0889 Fax: (416) 397-5463
15 February 2012
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Urban Development Services Paula M. Dill, Commissioner
100 Queen Street West City Hall 12th Floor, East Tower Toronto, ON M5H 2N2
Office of Executive Director Municipal Licensing and Standards Tel: (416) 397-4634 Fax: (416) 392-8805
Status of the Implementation of the Taxi Reforms (1998) BRIEFING NOTE

Planning and Transportation Committee December 16, 2005
Issue/Background: In April 1998, City Council established a Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry. The creation of the Task Force was the culmination of a number of concerns expressed by members of the public, the press, taxicab owners and drivers, the Toronto Board of Trade and the tourism industry respecting the state of the taxicab industry in Toronto. The concerns identified included the quality, safety and reliability of taxicabs, the level of customer service, and the taxicab industry structure, including the role of absentee owners and passive investors, and the ability of taxicab drivers to earn a fair wage.
Key Points: The guiding principles of the review of the City of Torontos taxicab industry were; 1. 2. The general public has the right to expect and demand clean, safe taxicabs; The general public has the right to expect and demand courteous, knowledgeable and experienced drivers;
3. Taxicab drivers have the right to expect and demand a fair return for their labour; 4. 5. Taxicab plate holders have the right to expect and demand a fair return for their investment; and, The City has the right to expect and demand that its By-law will be obeyed.
The goals of the review of the City of Torontos taxicab industry were to propose recommendations to ensure that the Toronto Taxicab Industry; 1. Provides safe and secure taxicab service to the public; 2. Offers high quality customer service in clean, comfortable taxicabs; 3. Employs courteous, knowledgeable and experienced drivers; and 4. Permits people who work in the taxicab industry to share fairly in the costs and benefits.
Status of Taxicab Reforms Recommended by City Council Recommendations 1 and 2, pertaining to the adoption of the Report to Review the Toronto Taxicab Industry and its recommendations, as a package, were adopted by City Council on November 28, 1998. Recommendation 3 and 4 dealt with a report on the adoption of the Passenger Bill of Rights and its implementation. City Council enacted Bylaw 245-1999, on May 12, 1999, which requires all taxicabs to display the Passenger Bill of Rights prominently within the taxicab. Recommendations 5 and 6 addressed the issue of taximeters having the ability to produce printed receipts, the capability to record trip data and the ability to monitor taxicab drivers and owners income, in an on-going fashion. City Council adopted Bylaw 245-1999, on May 12, 1999, which requires all taxicabs to be equipped with a taximeter that produces printed receipts and records trip data. However, the City was unable to implement some of the items in recommendations 5 and 6 due to concerns regarding the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56 (MFIPPA). Specifically task force recommendation 5.1, which required the new meters being introduced be programmed to monitor the income of drivers, and that it be a requirement that the City of Toronto be provided with this information on an annual basis. This has not been done because of the MFIPPA concerns, and because of the logistics of monitoring different drivers operating the same taxicab. All the new meters have the capability of recording data on an on-going basis. Further to this, recommendations 5.2, states all efforts be made to monitor the income of drivers/owners, 5.3, states The Bylaw be amended to provide that failure to provide the annual income information to the City of Toronto shall be an offence and 6, which requires that information from the receipt equipment be made available to Toronto Licensing as required, for information, training and review purposes. These recommendations have not been incorporated into the Bylaw due to MFIPPA concerns. A letter dated January 28, 2002, was sent to 2,563 taxicab owners, requesting the voluntary collection of data from their taximeters at the Vehicle Inspection Facility, when the taxicabs appeared for regularly scheduled inspections. Subsequently, only six taxicab owners agreed to the voluntary collection of their taximeter data. The entire issue needs re-examination relative to concerns regarding the MFIPPA.
2
However, the implementation of these recommendations would be beneficial for the gathering of taximeter data for inclusion in the formula for the issuance of Ambassador taxicab plates, the ongoing requirement to monitor drivers income for the setting of taximeter rates and in order to gauge the general economic state of the industry. Recommendations 7 and 8 dealt with the customer complaint process and the introduction of a 24hour customer service telephone line. City Council enacted Bylaw 478-1999, on July 29, 1999, which instituted 1-877-TO-TAXIS as a 24-hour customer service telephone number for submitting complaints or compliments and all taxicabs must be maintain, in the vehicle, a tariff card which displays this telephone number to passengers in the taxicab. Recommendation 8(b) required all taxicabs to display the customer service number with a safe driving message on the back of the taxicab, visible to other vehicles. This was not incorporated into the Bylaw because it was felt that it would lead to a proliferation of complaints about the driving habits of taxicab drivers, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.8 and is enforced by the Toronto Police Service. Recommendation 8(c) dealt with the ability of the public to file on-line complaints. In 2001 the Taxi Industry Unit established an e-mail hotline for Municipal Licensing and Standards (MLS) on the City of Torontos website. Recommendation 8(d) addressed with the ability of the public to choose to file a complaint through the Taxicab Advisory Committee (TAC), or by attending a hearing with staff of MLS. The TAC does not currently have a mechanism which would allow them to accept customer complaints, however MLS staff in the Taxi Industry complaints unit are available to meet with customers regarding their complaints. Recommendation 8(e) and 8(f) related to MLS responding in writing to complaints from the public and their timely resolution. The MLS Taxi Industry complaints unit currently responds in writing to the complainant, upon receipt of a complaint. A concerted effort is made to resolve all complaints received within thirty days, however the outcome of the investigations is normally communicated by telephone due to time constraints. Recommendation 9 required the adoption of the reform package, with regard to the principles behind the Ambassador taxicab program. Council endorsed the principles that Ambassador Taxicabs provide high quality driving skills, customer service and vehicles. Recommendation 10 addressed the age of vehicles used as taxicabs. The age requirements for vehicles used as taxicabs, were implemented by the enactment, by Council on March 4, 1999, of ByLaw 84-1999. Recommendation 10(a) pertained to Ambassador Taxicab training. The Ambassador Taxicab program and training component were implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of By-Law 478-1999. Recommendation 11 related to the annual issuance of 100 new Ambassador Taxicab licences from the taxicab drivers waiting list. To date, 767 Ambassador Taxicab licences have been issued to individuals on the taxicab drivers waiting list.
Recommendation 12 addressed the implementation of a two-year age of vehicle extension for wheelchair accessible taxicabs and those taxicabs powered by natural gas. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 13 set out specific conditions regarding the operation of Ambassador Taxicabs. These provisions related to the Ambassador Taxicab being driven only by the licence holder, that the licence not be transferred or leased, that the vehicle display a distinguishable Ambassador taxicab insignia and that these vehicles be entitled to pick up passengers at the Toronto International Airport, pending agreements with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority. The recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. However, the portion of this recommendation regarding Ambassador Taxicabs being entitled to pick up passengers at the Toronto International Airport was not implemented. Discussions were undertaken with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, but no changes to Provincial legislation to allow Ambassador Taxicabs to pick up at the airport, have been forthcoming. MLS will revisit this issue with the new Provincial government. Recommendation 14 required that the existing 3,480 approved Standard Taxicab licences be grandfathered and recommendation 14(a) required that transferability of Standard Taxicab licences remain as currently provided for under the Bylaw for a period of five years. These recommendations were implemented administratively, requiring no amendments to the Bylaw. Recommendation 14(b) required that after five years, Standard Taxicab licences be transferred only to persons holding a valid Toronto taxicab drivers licence who may lease the taxicab, drive the taxicab, or transfer to a person holding a valid taxicab drivers licence, who may drive, lease or transfer the licence to a person holding a valid taxicab drivers licence. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 906-2003 on September 24, 2003. This amendment to the Municipal Code came into effect on January 1st, 2004. This by-law provision was challenged by the taxicab industry in 2005 and was overturned by the courts. This decision is currently being appealed by the City. Recommendation 14(c)(1) required that leasing continue as currently provided for, while amending the Bylaw to limit a lessee from being party to more than one lease and the lessee must drive the taxicab on a full-time basis. These provisions were adopted by the enactment by Council of Bylaw 94-2000, on October 5th, 2000. Recommendation 14(c)(2) required new drivers of Standard Taxicabs to complete the existing threeweek taxicab driver training program. The three-week taxicab driver training program, which was instituted in 1996, met the requirements of this recommendation. Recommendation 14(c)(3) related to taxicab driver training, which is to include training on the Taxis on Patrol program. The current training contains a component dealing with the Taxis on Patrol program. However, the issue of the administration of the Taxis on Patrol program was forwarded to the TAC for their input and comments and no response has been forthcoming regarding this program. Recommendation 14(d)(1) pertained to all Standard Taxicab owners participating fully in the taxicab industry by personally attending scheduled vehicle inspections, personally filling annual documents and personally attending all hearings relating to that owners licence or vehicle. Amendments were made to the Bylaw regarding these recommendations, but were challenged through the Courts, overturned and cannot be enforced. City of Toronto Legal has reported further to the Planning and
4
Transportation Committee (P&T) on mechanisms to require the owners attendance, but Committee deferred the matter. Recommendation 14(d)(2) related to Standard Taxicab Licence owners not being permitted to sell, transfer, lease or assign to a corporation that owns one or more licences, effectively immediately. The effective immediately clause contained in this recommendation was not incorporated because it was felt that it was not legally defensible to grandfather a process for existing Standard Taxicab owners and then attempt to discriminate against another type of Standard Taxicab plate owner. However, an amendment regarding this recommendation was debated by City Council and this recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 386-2003, by Council, on May 23, 2003. Recommendation 14(e) pertained to Standard Taxicab owners who wish to apply to have their taxicab designated as an Ambassador Taxicab. This recommendation included the requirement to successfully complete the Advanced Ambassador Taxicab training program and an age of vehicle requirement. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 478-1999, by Council, on July 29, 1999. Recommendation 15 related to the operational requirements of a Standard Taxicab, which has been approved as a Designated Ambassador Taxicab. These requirements are exactly as set out in recommendation 13 (see above). This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 478-1999, by Council, on July 29, 1999. Recommendation 16 dealt with the abandonment of Designated Ambassador Taxicab status by a Standard Taxicab owner. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment of Bylaw 4781999, by Council, on July 29, 1999. Recommendation 17 required that Toronto Licensing investigate with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the possibility for the City of Toronto to set limits on lease rates and instituting conditions for lease cancellations. This investigation has been informal to date because the Municipality does not have the authority, under its licensing regime, to interfere with the business dealings of the industry for purposes not directly relevant to licensing. The Chair of P&T is charged with meeting with Legal to discuss the issues. Recommendations 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 and 17.4, dealt with the issue of the availability of Accessible taxicabs and specifically, 17.1 recommended that MLS achieve the goal of licensing 73 Accessible taxicabs by 2002. There are currently 75 Accessible taxicabs licensed and operating under contract to the Toronto Transit Commissions (TTC) Wheeltrans Program. Recommendation 17.2 related to the implementation of the Wheeltrans 5 Year Accessible Plan approved by the TTC and Metro Council in 1997. The implementation of the Wheeltrans 5 Year Accessible Plan was achieved through the issuance of Accessible Taxicab Licences in concert with TTC contracts for wheelchair accessible taxicab service. Recommendation 17.3 required the issuance of 25 additional Accessible taxicab licences, to be issued yearly, until such time as ten percent of all taxicabs are Accessible or until Council is satisfied that the communities needs have been met. Accessible Taxicab licences are currently available for issuance, but the issue is undergoing study by the TTC and is presently not feasible due to demand issues.
5
This recommendation also required that Accessible Taxicabs have a reduced licence renewal fee of no more than fifty percent of the Ambassador Taxicab license fees, or make grants available in similar amounts. The current Accessible taxicab initial licence fee is $387.00, as opposed to the $775.00 initial fee for an Ambassador Taxicab license. The current Accessible Taxicab license renewal fee of $150.00 is substantially less than the $604.00 renewal fee for an Ambassador taxicab license. Recommendation 17.4 requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (UDS) report on the issue of Accessible taxicabs, in consultation with the appropriate City staff, the taxicab industry and representative of the disabled community, in order to achieve the needs of the disabled community. The Commissioner of UDS in consultation with the TTC reported to P&T and to City Council regarding the TTCs, Wheeltrans 5 Year Accessible Plan, which was implemented in 1999. Recommendations 18 through 23 addressed the constitution and mandate of an elected TAC. The adoption, by City Council, of the Report to Review the Toronto Taxicab Industry set the stage for the reformation of the TAC. A report to P&T dated November 12, 1999, was forwarded to City Council recommending that the Terms of Reference for the TAC, as devised by a large Taxi Industry Workshop in November, 1999, be adopted, and an industry-wide election for membership of the TAC be held with the participation of the taxicab industry. Elections for the TAC membership were held on October 10, 2000, and the committee held its first meeting on December 4, 2000. Recommendation 24 required Toronto Licensing to develop and provide a five-day, taxicab licence owner and designated agents certification course, that must be taken annually by all taxicab licence owners and designated agents and addresses at a minimum; changes to the Bylaw or other relevant legislation, Toronto tourism information, performance statistics respecting the taxicab industry, workshop to discuss potential improvements to the taxicab industry, and an outline of personal and survivor income insurance coverage issues. On February 7th, 2003, Council enacted and passed Bylaw 93-2003, which requires all taxicab owners to attend a refresher-training course once every four years, prior to the renewal of their licence. The issue of a certification course for designated agents was forwarded to the TAC for comment and input. The TAC, to date, has not reported back on this issue. Recommendation 25 related to MLS developing and providing a three-day Taxicab Driver Refresher Training Course to be taken every two years, which is designed to enhance and/or reinforce the skill sets of current taxicab drivers in the City of Toronto. The focus of the course is on providing superior professional customer service to the City's diverse clientele. A five-day Taxicab Driver Refresher Training Course, to be taken every two years was implemented in 2001. This refresher training was reduced to a three-day course to be taken every four years, by the enactment of Bylaw 93-2003, by City Council, on March 8th, 2003. Recommendation 25.1 requested that MLS staff and the office of the CAO immediately begin working with community colleges and the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities to establish a time flexible, comprehensive Ambassador Taxicab education and training program. This process was initiated in 1999. Recommendations 25.2, 26 and 26.1 required the Commissioner of UDS to prepare terms of reference in order to begin a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, regarding the provision of training through a community college for the Ambassador Taxicab program to begin in 1999. Centennial
6
College was successful in RFP process and began to deliver the forty-day Ambassador Taxicab training program in 1999. Recommendation 26.1.1 requested that all new recipients of City issued taxicab licences be required to complete the Ambassador Taxicab training program. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 26.1.2 dealt with the Ambassador Taxicab training course being available in two parts, over a two-year, period during regular and off-hours. The Ambassador Taxicab training course is delivered over forty consecutive days and is available during regular and off-hours, but not in two parts over a two-year period as recommended. This is due to the number of Ambassador Taxicab licences issued since 1999, and as a result, the numerous taxicab drivers requiring the Ambassador Taxicab training course. Recommendation 27 requested that MLS consult with City Solicitor regarding the necessary bylaw amendments to the taxicab drivers waiting list regarding a mechanism to determine who is allowed access to the Ambassador Taxicab training course. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 28 dealt with taxicab drivers access to the Ambassador Taxicab training course. The training course is only available to drivers from the taxicab drivers waiting list that are selected for issuance of an Ambassador Taxicab licence. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 29 related to the option of taxicab drivers selected for the issuance of an Ambassador Taxicab licence, from the taxicab drivers waiting list, electing to take or defer the Ambassador Taxicab training. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendation 30 required that taxicab drivers on the Ambassador Taxicab issuance waiting list, who take the Ambassador Taxicab training course and fail, be given one opportunity to add their name to the bottom of the drivers waiting list and retake the course. This recommendation was implemented by the enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999. Recommendations 31 and 32 pertained to age of vehicle requirements for taxicabs. City Council enacted Bylaw 478-1999, on July 29, 1999, which amended the Bylaw to institute these recommendations. Recommendation 33 and 34 dealt with an increase, of ten full-time equivalents, in the number of taxicab enforcement staff, and the appropriate operating budget increases, along with a corresponding increase in licence fees. This was achieved by including monies in the 1999 budget for the hiring of ten additional front line enforcement staff in the Taxicab Industry Unit. Recommendation 34.1 required the development of a formula to address the future issuance of Ambassador Taxicab licences. The issuance formula was revised in 1998, and again revised in 2002, in consultation with the Finance Department. The formula formed the basis for Councils approval in April 2003, of the issuance of an additional 841 Ambassador Taxicab plates in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Recommendation 34.2 pertained to the ongoing monitoring of changes in standard taxicab plate values, lease rates, operating costs and taxicab drivers income. MLS currently monitors standard
7
taxicab plate values, lease rates and operating costs for inclusion in the Ambassador Taxicab issuance and fare formulas. As mentioned previously, taxicab drivers incomes must be collected voluntarily due to MFIPPA concerns. Recommendation 34.3 requested an increase in enforcement and partnering with the Toronto Police Service (TPS) in order to strictly enforce the Bylaw provisions regarding unlicensed and out-of-town taxicabs and limousines and to report to Council on this issue. The Taxicab Industry Unit undertakes undercover investigations of out-of town and unlicensed taxicabs and limousines on an ongoing basis and occasionally, in partnership with TPS. A report on illegal taxicabs and limousines, dated September 19, 2002, was prepared, submitted to the Licensing Sub-Committee (LSC) and forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee and Council. Recommendation 34.4 required the adoption of mechanisms to ensure compliance with recommendations 14(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). The mechanisms adopted are set out above, in this briefing note. Recommendation 34.5 pertained to the provision of a taxicab driver funded benefits package, including long-term disability coverage and spousal benefits. City of Toronto Legal has advised that the City does not have the authority to develop and administer such a program on behalf of taxicab drivers. However, the topics of additional insurance to cover long-term disability and spousal benefits are addressed in the taxicab driver and owner refresher-training courses, which all licensees must complete, every four years, as a prerequisite for licence renewal. Recommendation 34.6 requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services consult with various financial institutions, and submit a report on the feasibility of the City of Toronto buying back all outstanding taxicab plates, with an appropriate financial mechanism, and the City of Toronto subsequently act as the leasing agent for these plates. City of Toronto Legal advised that this proposal is outside the jurisdiction of the City, and was not pursued. It was also recognised that the City does not have the resources to consider such a plan. Recommendation 35 required the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report to Council on the resource and budget implications related to taxicab training requirements and the customer complaints process. Reports relating to resources and budgeting for taxicab driver and owner training and the customer complaints process have been prepared and forwarded to Committee and Council. A number of recommendations contained in those reports have been adopted by Council and implemented by MLS. Recommendation 36 required the Commissioner of UDS in consultation with the City Solicitor to report on changes to the Bylaw, or other legislation, to enhance the enforcement of the licensing Bylaw relative to the taxicab industry. MLS has met numerous times with City Legal and requested legal opinions regarding enforcement issues. These meetings and legal opinions are part of an ongoing process to improve and find new mechanisms for enforcement. Recommendation 37 requested that MLS, in co-operation with the Ministry of Transportation (MOT), develop and seek appropriate approval for a co-ordinated taxicab licence identification program. This would require the vertical word TAXI to be included on the Ontario Licence Plate attached to taxicabs, which clearly identifies the vehicle as a taxicab, and to investigate a coordinated numbering system that provides for matching numbers for Ontario Licence Plates and City of Toronto taxicab plates.
8
Further to this, recommendation 38 requested that MLS, in co-operation with the MOT, investigate the possibility of requiring the vertical word LIVERY to be included on the Ontario Licence Plate attached to the vehicle, which clearly identifies the vehicle as a limousine. These two recommendations were discussed with the MOT in 1999, and were not pursued due to the fact that the Province dictates that a licence plate attaches to the owner of the vehicle, as opposed to staying attached to the vehicle, in the event of the sale of the vehicle. This presents a problem in implementing a system of vehicle licensing that applies only to taxicabs and limousines in Toronto only. However, recent talks with the Ministry have proven fruitful and the Ministry has undertaken to study the possibilities of how such a system could be implemented. Recommendation 39 related to MLS working in co-operation with the MOT to develop a taxicab safety blitz inspection program. The MLS Taxi Industry Unit partners with MOT, the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the TPS in conducting taxicab safety blitz inspections, which are conducted approximately every two months. Recommendation 40 requested that the TAC and MLS work with the Toronto hotel industry to ensure that hotel doormen hail only Toronto licensed taxicabs for hotel guests. The Taxi Industry Unit has held several meetings with Mr. Rod Seiling, President of the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, regarding this issue. Further to this, MLS Taxi Industry Unit staff have visited and met with security staff from the major Toronto hotels to advise them regarding this issue and provide contact persons at MLS for the provision of information and an immediate response to complaints regarding taxicabs on their hotel premises. Recommendation 41 required MLS to consult with the MMAH to seek amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001,c. 25, (the new Act), to remove the exemption for Pearson International Airport (PIA) plated taxicabs and limousines, which currently permits these vehicles that are not licensed by MLS, to pick up fares within the boundaries of the City of Toronto. Discussions will be undertaken with the new Provincial government regarding changes to the legislation relative to this issue. Recommendation 43 required MLS, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to seek to amend the Bylaw to licence designated agents as managers, subject to duties and obligations to be developed by MLS, considering the following options in the development of such licensing provisions; that designated agents who manage one or more plates be active in the taxicab industry and that designated agents successfully complete a certified training course. This matter was referred to the TAC in October of 2000, for their consideration and input, no report has yet been received from the TAC. Recommendation 43.1 requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (UDS) report, within one year, on how taxicab brokerages can be made to accept greater responsibility and accountability for taxicabs within their brokerages. This matter was referred to the TAC for their consideration and input, no report has yet been received from the TAC. Recommendation 44 pertained to the report, referred to in recommendation 43.1, on how taxicab brokerages can be made to accept greater responsibility and accountability for taxicabs within their brokerages, be referred to the Licensing Commission. Seeing as the Toronto Licensing Tribunal has replaced the Licensing Commission, which now only deals with the licence issuance and revocation appeals, this matter, was referred to the TAC for their consideration and input, no report has yet been received from the TAC.
9
Recommendation 45 related to amendments limiting the number of hours an individual can operate an Ambassador taxicab to 60 hours every seven consecutive days and the requirement to maintain a daily log, documenting the hours worked, which must be provide to MLS for review upon request. The enactment, by Council on July 29, 1999, of Bylaw 478-1999, amended the Bylaw by limiting the number of hours an individual can operate an Ambassador taxicab. The issue of maintaining a daily log of hours worked did not require an amendment, as the Bylaw contains provisions requiring the maintenance of a trip record which must be retained by the taxicab owner for a twelve month period and be available to MLS upon request. Recommendation 46 requested that MLS, in consultation with the City Solicitor, amend the Bylaw to provide for a $2.00 evening surcharge between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. City Council, at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted without amendment, a motion moved by Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong and seconded by Councillor Olivia Chow, deleting recommendation 46 of the Final Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry. Recommendation 47 required MLS discuss with MMAH amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001,c. 25, regarding minimum bylaw penalties. Discussions were held with MMAH, which resulted in no amendments being made to the new Act at this time. Recommendation 48 pertained to MLS developing an implementation management, performance and communications plan to inform stakeholders regarding the status of the taxicab reforms. A plan was devised for managing the implementation of the reforms and communication to taxicab industry stakeholders was achieved by way of reports to LSC, P&T, and the referring of many of the recommendations to the TAC for their consideration and comments. Recommendation 49 requested that the report referred to in recommendation 48 be referred to the City Solicitor for the purpose of developing specific instructions to amend the Bylaw, as required by these recommendations. The City Solicitor and the Municipal Law Group of Legal Services were intimately involved, by way of ongoing consultation, regarding the reporting to LSC, P&T and City Council, of legal issues surrounding the recommended taxicab reforms. Recommendation 49.1 related to MLS reminding all current taxicab owners, licensees and transferees of licences that taxicab owners licences are the exclusive property of the City of Toronto. The implementation of this recommendation was achieved by including a component regarding the ownership of taxicab owners licences in the taxicab owner and driver training curriculum. Recommendation 49.2 required Council to adopt a firm commitment to having an annual review of the taxicab reforms by the appropriate City staff and the City Auditor and the report be submitted to Committee and Council. This recommendation was referred back to Committee with a motion to amend it, but Committee never dealt with the issue. It was the stated intention of the City Auditor to examine the Ambassador Taxicab program in 2002 and report his or her findings to Council. Recommendation 50 pertained to authorising and directing the appropriate City Officials to take the necessary action to implement the recommended reforms. This was achieved by the ongoing implementation of the recommendations emanating from the Final Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry. Recommendation 50.1 related to taxicab drivers being encouraged to purchase appropriate income protection insurance coverage, which would protect them in cases where they are unable to drive
10
their taxicabs due to illness or other circumstances. This recommendation was implemented by the inclusion of a Business Management and Financial Planning component in the training of all taxicab owners and drivers. Recommendation 50.2 dealt with a further recommendation by Councillor Giansante respecting the consideration by MLS of the licensing of designated agents. This matter was referred by the LSC to the TAC for their input and comments. The TAC has yet to report back on this issue. Conclusions: In total there were ninety-seven recommendations emanating from the Final Report of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry. Of these recommendations, eighty-seven percent have now been resolved with only twelve remaining unresolved at present. Of the twelve unresolved recommendations, five were referred to the TAC for their consideration and input, with no reports forthcoming as yet. The remaining seven recommendations of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry, requested that MLS undertake discussions with a number of Provincial ministries and other non-governmental organizations in order to facilitate the implementation of certain recommendations. Discussions have been undertaken with the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and the Greater Toronto Hotel Association, regarding the feasibility of implementing a number of the recommendations. The initial discussions did not result in substantive changes to any legislation, pertaining to the taxicab industry in the City of Toronto, as reflected in the Taxicab Task Force Recommended Reforms Reference Table B, of the attendant report. However, given that there has been a recent change in the Provincial government these discussions will be revisited by MLS in future. MLS resolved, but were unable to implement a number of the recommendations. This was due to the fact that the Director of Corporate Access and Privacy and City of Toronto Legal Services advised MLS that MFIPPA concerns and current Provincial legislation, do not allow the City of Toronto to enact the necessary bylaws required to implement these recommendations.
Prepared by: Mark Dimuantes
Circulated to: Paula Dill, Pam Coburn, Frank Weinstock, Bruce Robertson, Bryan Byng Richard Mucha, Glenn Steeves, Contact for further information: Mark Dimuantes, Sr. Policy and Research Officer, Policy and Business Planning Unit Municipal Licensing and Standards Phone: (416) 392-8794 Fax: (416) 392-8805 e-mail: mdimuant@toronto.ca
Date: January 13, 2004

11
Gerald H. Manley
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Dr. Marion Joppe's Assessment of the Toronto Taxi Industry
From: "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Date: 12/17/2011 8:22 AM Subject: Dr. Marion Joppe's Assessment of the Toronto Taxi Industry
Dear Mr. Manley, My, this brings back memories!!! Unfortunately, I am just wrapping up for the year as I'll be away until January 3rd. So just a quick synopsis and we can pursue the discussion in the new year, if you would find that useful. The Board of Trade had contracted me to work on the taxicab issue in 1996/97 and I submitted my final report in March 1997. I reached the conclusion that you quoted because I held extensive meetings with taxicab drivers and owners and learned a lot about the hardships faced by many of the drivers. We had proposed an enhanced training program, but of course Councillor Moscoe highjacked the agenda and Toronto ended up with the Ambassador Program. Although I have not followed the developments regularly over the years, I have always had the sense that the restrictions put on the Ambassador cabs were such that it was very difficult, not to say impossible, to make a living with them, and that they certainly would not provide a pension upon retirement the way plates have over the years. If you would like a copy of that 1997 report, I could forward one to you in the new year as well. I hope this answers your question at least partly. Wishing you a very happy holiday season, Marion Joppe, PhD Research Chair in Tourism School of Hospitality and Tourism Management Macdonald Stewart Hall, #306 University of Guelph Guelph ON Canada N1G 1W2 Tel: 519-824-4120 ext. 58552 Fax: 519-823-5512
From: "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> To: mjoppe@uoguelph.ca Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:57:30 PM Subject: Fw: Quote From An Interview For The Toronto Taxi Industry In Their Cab Connection Magazine
Dr. Joppe, I have been a member of the Toronto taxi industry for almost four decades. I vividly remember reading an interview you gave many years ago for a publication in the Toronto taxi industry called Cab Connection. You stated at that time that " If the City of Toronto doesn't stop using its taxi industry as a social employment welfare net, it will never achieve success as a business or customer service industry." I believe your time as the head of the Toronto Historical Society gave you a unique insight as to what were and are the troubles occurring in our industry and how they negatively affect tourism in the City of Toronto.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
The reason I am asking if you recall that statement is our industry is entering into taxi reformation meetings, which we allegedly had in 1998 with little resolve and I believe your comments were very accurate in describing how the City deals with its taxi industry, which hopefully might help us turn the corner in this matter at these upcoming meetings. Over the past several years, I have often referred to your remarks and will continue to do so with the hope that changes in this area will occur. I believe that perhaps this time the City maybe receptive to comments from professionals outside of the industry especially since the main architect of our industry's issues and disasterous results over the past couple of decades, Councillor Howard Moscoe has retired. I am interested in the history of why you came to this conclusion and if you still believe in that statement?
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Your position for 2012 Taxicab Industry Review

Mr. Addai,
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "Asafo Addai" <shangoxx@gmail.com> 12/17/2011 5:01 PM Your position for 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Andy Reti's THE ISSUING FORMULA-97.doc
As my letters are part of the public domain, I have no legal position or personal objection in denying you the right in posting them. I have attached another letter of interest that was written in 1997 by Mr. Andy Reti but is as pertinent today as it was when it was written. I believe Taxi News will post this with my letters as well. I can appreciate that you are trying to facilitate change within the Toronto Taxi Industry but how you are going about it is, shall we say less than accurate. To claim systemic racism is beyond ridiculous in content and without any realm of truth. I will not go into the lack of merits in your claim other than to say I have written a number of articles on your claim, which were printed in Taxi News that thoroughly describe the claim from an entirely different perspective. My hope is that the adjudicator that heard your case will eventually come down with an interpretation realizing your ruse and what the true reasons behind what you and the Ambassador operators are really trying to achieve. It is widely known in the industry that your claim under the alleged circumstances of systemic racism is bogus and many of our industry's members feel that you are potentially hurting the efforts in facilitating the needed changes that will bring our industry back into a position of health where taxi drivers can earn a reasonable living without working twenty hours a day seven days a week to achieve it. Your claim will put the City on the defensive and possibly not as receptive to resolving the numerous outstanding industry issues that exist. I would suggest that you try to focus on those issues and put aside your personal agenda of taxi reform. I write articles for Toronto's Taxi News publication, which I am sure you know comes out on a monthly basis. Any position I have on industry issues can be readily seen in that publication if the editor and/or publisher feel they have merit enough to be published. One other point that needs to be clarified Mr. Addai is that your email sign off reads and I quote "The voice of all taxi drivers." I am a taxi driver first and foremost and drive most days and I can assure you that you are not my voice in the Toronto taxi industry nor the voice of the vast majority of members in our industry. I would respectfully ask you to remove that statement from your emails and any other Toronto taxi industry correspondence in the future as it is very inaccurate.
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley ----- Original Message ----From: Asafo Addai To: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Your position for 2012 Taxicab Industry Review
Dear Mr. Manley, Given your high profile in the Toronto taxi scene, would you be kind enough to share your vision and proposal for the upcoming 2012 Taxicab Industry Review. I would love to publish your position for our readers. Thanks for your co-operation.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
Ps. Would it be alright if I posted your 12 letters on this blog? -Asafo A. Addai www.jitneyhack.com The voice of all taxi drivers
05/17/2012
I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Private Vehicle Tax (P.V.T.)

From: To: Date: Subject: "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "taxireview" <taxireview@toronto.ca> 12/21/2011 3:30 PM Private Vehicle Tax (P.V.T.)
Taxi Review, As I have completed my submissions to you, I wanted to point out that they are all issues that need attention from city hall. It is my intention to point out issues and give some viable suggestions to resolve them. I have never portrayed that I have all the answers nor do I represent any particular faction in the Toronto taxi industry but I believe my almost 40 years of involvement other than just driving my taxi in this industry does give a certain amount of insight that most of our other members cannot provide and at the very least the letters are a good starting point for discussion. I am looking forward to the second level of discussions with the hope that the City of Toronto will prove me wrong in my assessment that whatever changes the City will make, our industry will be worse off as that has been the historical results for the past fifty years
Gerry Manley ----- Original Message ----From: taxireview To: Gerry Manley Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Private Vehicle Tax (P.V.T.) Hello Gerry, Thanks for you submission. You have already submitted this, but better you submit it twice than not at all. Seasons greetings to you as well.
Best regards, The 2012 Taxicab Industry Review Team Web Page: www.toronto.ca/taxireview Email: taxireview@toronto.ca Comments Line: (416) 338-3095 TTY: (416) 338-0889 Fax: (416) 397-5463 >>> On 12/20/2011 at 4:57 PM, in message <8A8030D59F2A4CAE83C29ECAB94E0383@gerry>, "Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> wrote: To Whom It may Concern, I am not sure whether I submitted this for your consideration. If I have just delete this copy. This should complete my items for consideration. Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of our staff involved in this most difficult process. I hope 2012 brings good health, happiness and prosperity to not only all of our staff, but their families and friends as well.
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 2
05/17/2012
Page 1 of 3
taxireview - Dr. Marion Joppe's 1997 Report on the Toronto Taxi Industry
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> <taxireview@toronto.ca> 12/23/2011 6:01 PM Dr. Marion Joppe's 1997 Report on the Toronto Taxi Industry "Taxi News" <john@taxinews.com>, "ML&S Taxi Training Manager Emilio Leonardis" <eleonar@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Taxi Investigation Services Director Lance Cumberbatch" <Lcumber@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Manager Policy & Planning Services Mr. Rudi Czekalla" <rczekal@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Ian Redfearn" <iredfear@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Executive Director Bruce Robertson" <brobert1@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Director Licensing Services Mr. Bryan Byng" <bbyng@toronto.ca>, "Marion Joppe PhD" <mjoppe@uoguelph.ca>, "Councillor Vincent Crisanti Ward 1 Etobicoke North" <councillor_crisanti@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Shelley Carroll Ward 33 Don Valley East" <councillor_carroll@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Sarah Doucette Ward 13 Parkdale-High park" <councillor_doucette@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Ron Moeser Ward 44 Scarborough East" <councillor_moeser@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Raymond Cho Ward 42 Scarborough-Rouge River" <councillor_cho@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Peter Milczyn Ward 5 Etobicoke-Lakeshore" <councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Paula Fletcher Ward 30 Toronto-Danforth" <councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Paul Ainslie Ward 43 Scarborough-East" <councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Pam McConnell Ward 28 Toronto CentreRosedale" <councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Norm Kelly Ward 30 Scarborough-Agincourt" <councillor_kelly@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mike Layton Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina" <councillor_layton@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mike Del Grande Ward 39 Scarborough-Agincourt" <councillor_delgrande@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Michelle Berardinetti ward 35 Scarborough Southwest" <councillor_berardinetti@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Michael Thompson Ward 37 Scarborough Centre" <councillor_thompson@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon Ward 32 BeachesEast York" <councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mary Fragedakis Ward 29 Toronto-Danforth" <councillor_fragedakis@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Mark Grimes Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore" <councillor_grimes@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Maria Augimeri Ward 9 York Centre" <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre" <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre" <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River" <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport" <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam Ward 27 Toronto Centre-Rosedale" <councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Karen Stintz Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence" <councillor_stintz@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Josh Matlow Ward 22 St. Paul's" <councillor_matlow@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Josh Colle Ward 15 Eglinton-Lawrence" <councillor_colle@toronto.ca>, "Councillor John Parker Ward 26 Don Valley West" <councillor_parker@toronto.ca>, "Councillor John Filion Ward 23 Willowdale" <councillor_filion@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Joe Mihevc Ward 21 St. Paul's" <councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Jaye Robinson Ward 25 Don Valley Don Valley West" <councillor_robinson@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Janet Davis Ward 31 Beaches-East York" <councillor_davis@toronto.ca>, "Councillor James Pastermak Ward 10 York Centre" <councillor_pasternak@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Gord Perks Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park" <councillor_perks@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti Ward 7 York West" <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Gary Crawford Ward 36 Scarborough
05/17/2012
Page 2 of 3
Southwest" <councillor_crawford@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Frank Di Giorgio Ward 12 York South-Weston" <councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Doug Holyday Ward 3 Etobicoke Centre" <councillor_holyday@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Doug Ford Ward 2 Etobicoke North" <councillor_dford@toronto.ca>, "Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong Ward 34 Don Valley East" <councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca>, "Councillor David Shiner Ward 24 Willowdale" <councillor_shiner@toronto.ca> Attachments: 22March97 Report By Dr. Marion Joppe On The Metro Taxi Industry.pdf; 17Dec11 Taxi News Article Forgotten Agenda Item.doc
To All, In my letter sent on 17 December 2011, "Forgotten Agenda Item" that deals with issues involving mechanically unfit and dirty taxis as well as less than professional drivers in many cases that still exist in the City of Toronto's taxi fleet, I referred to a report that was completed on March 22,1997 and submitted by Dr. Marion Joppe, who at that time was affiliated with Ryerson Polytechnic University. That report was commissioned by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto of the time. There were industry members who believed the content of this report was pertinent to many of our issues of the time and asked for its inclusion in the 1998 reformation meetings but Councillor Moscoe axed that idea. I have detailed Dr. Joppe's background in my 17 December 2011 letter that I attached to this correspondence as well as attaching her 1997 report that she was kind enough to take time and send me during this busy time of year and that I made into a PDF file for all to view. Seeing as the L&S Committee always asks for input from the Toronto Travel & Tourism on any taxi industry concerns, I believe that Dr. Joppe's 1997 report in many cases would be as pertinent today as it was then. Yes some of the circumstances have changed since that time and the dollar values she gives have dramatically increased but many of the points and recommendations she made in 1997 would be relevant today. For example the number of taxis and the issuance of more taxi plates. Seeing as Dr. Joppe is considered an expert in the field of Travel & Tourism and of course the Toronto taxi industry is heavily linked with transportation services in this area, I believe it would be of great assistance for our upcoming reformation meetings to have the City of Toronto to consult with this expert especially since we are fortunate enough to have her living in the GTA. I found the report very well done and informative. It corrected one of my assumptions and that was that I thought the first taxi plate allowed to be sold in Toronto was 1965 but Dr. Joppe's report shows in was actually in 1963. In my letter I showed a link to Ryerson University as well as the University of Guelph which is out of date as Dr. Joppe is now affiliated only with the University of Guelph. Below is listed her contact information. University of Guelph Marion Joppe, PhD University Research Chair School of Hospitality and Tourism Management College of Management and Economics Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120, Ext. 58552 Fax: 519-823-5512 Email: mjoppe@uoguelph.ca Web: www.htm.uoguelph.ca
Gerry Manley 105 Rowena Drive, Suite 405
05/17/2012
Page 3 of 3
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3A 1R2 Tel: (416) 948-1921 Fax: (416) 441-9593 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net Web Site: www.taxidriversafety.net
05/17/2012
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (W.S.I.B.)
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> "Taxi News" <john@taxinews.com> 12/29/2011 10:13 AM Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (W.S.I.B.) "ML&S Manager Policy & Planning Services Mr. Rudi Czekalla" <rczekal@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Executive Director Bruce Robertson" <brobert1@toronto.ca>, "ML&S Acting Director Licensing Services Mr. Bryan Byng" <bbyng@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre" <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre" <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York South-Weston" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River" <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport" <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, "Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, "City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford" <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, "City Of Toronto Deputy City Manager John Livey" <jlivey@toronto.ca> Attachments: 29Dec11 Taxi News WSIB Letter.doc
Dear John, I have written this short article at the request of several industry members who are aware of my involvement in this subject matter over the past 2 plus decades. At this late date, I am sure that this will not be part of your January 2012 issue but perhaps it might be part of your February 2012 issue. If and when this does start, I believe a number of other areas need to be brought on board as well. Without getting into all the reasons why, I believe many of them are self-evident. Below is a list of those I believe should be involved in this process and there are probably others as well that I at this time have not thought of. For once, let's do this right the first time if we decide to move forward so we don't have to revisit it in a couple of years down the road. 1) Ministry of Insurances 2) Current & Perspective Insurance Companies Involved in Our Industry 3) Metro Links 4) Other Ministry of Labour Departments That Would Become Available 5) A.O.M. (Association of Municipalities - Ontario) Note: The City Of Toronto is No Longer Member Of & Should Consider Re-Joining
05/17/2012
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 2
taxireview - Airport Exemption
From: To:
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>, taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> Date: 6/6/2012 6:11 PM Subject: Airport Exemption CC: City Of Toronto Deputy City Manager John Livey <jlivey@toronto.ca>, City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, City of Toronto Solicitor Anna Kinastowski <akinasto@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza Ward 8 York West <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chair Cesar Palacio Ward 17 Davenport <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Chin Lee Ward 41 Scarborough-Rouge River <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Frances Nunziata Ward 11 York SouthWeston <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Glenn De Baeremaeker Ward 38 Scarborough Centre <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>, Councillor L&S Gloria Lindsay Luby Ward 4 Etobicoke Centre <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>, ML&S Taxi Investigation Services Director Lance Cumberbatch <Lcumber@toronto.ca> Attachments: 18Aug09 McGuinty Email On Exemption Issue.eml; 7Sep09 McGuinty Email.eml; 1978 Bill 195 and 173 Point of Pick Up Legislation.pdf
Dear Tracey, As part of the ongoing taxi review, there was a day dedicated to issues that the City of Toronto feels they have no control or authority over. Unfortunately due to a previous commitment, I was unable to attend that meeting but I am sure that the Airport Exemption issue would have been one of the main topics of discussion. Due to the fact that I have been involved in trying to correct this injustice since 1980 and was a member of a three man Toronto taxi industry committee with Mr. Andy Reti and Mr. Hillel Gudes from 2002 to 2006 that dealt with the Province of Ontario on this issue, which by the way was momentarily successful in having this Exemption left out of the Toronto Act (2006), I have been requested by industry members to respond to how the City of Toronto could intercede on behalf of our membership in an attempt to overturn this injustice. As you see, I have attached three letters of many in my possession on this subject matter to show how this can be addressed by the City of Toronto. The Toronto Act (2006) is the replacement for the Ontario Provincial Municipal Act as far as the City of Toronto is concerned. This Act was brought into being by the Province as they deemed the City of Toronto to be a mature and responsible government capable of self-government and able to handle all of their own affairs without provincial interference, which was addressed by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable John Gerretsen and at my request as you can see in the attached letter, included taxi industry issues. Shortly after the Act came into being and before the ink had dried, there was a shake-up in the provincial government and a new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was named, Minister Watson who without major stakeholder's meetings, reversed his government's promise of not including the Airport Exemption in the Toronto Act (2006) and put it in. Apparently, the Minister has that power without going to Queens Park for authority but it raised a great deal of questions and controversy, which to this day has not been addressed. When Premier McGuinty was questioned by the press on this issue, he responded as per the second attached letter, which included some comments made by Minister Watson as well. When viewed in context, you will observe just how ludicrous those comments were and showed two elected officials scrambling after being caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. The City of Toronto has not once gone to the Province on behalf of their taxi and livery members to find out why the Premier allowed this reversal. Considering that the Province's actions violates their word to the City to not interfere with how they operate their city, it should raise a red flag to our city hall members that this maybe only the beginning of provincial interference if enough influence is brought on the provincial government to change City of Toronto operating and procedural by-laws to suit the province's intended purposes thus totally violating not only the spirit of the Toronto Act (2006) but its alleged mandate as well. The Toronto taxi industry has lost in excess of one and a half billion dollars in revenues since this Exemption began in 1978. There was no logical reason for it to be legislated in the first place and the provincial government in 1980 held meetings as well on this subject matter with the Honourable Tom Wells, the then Minister of Inter-Government Affairs , who promisd to remove the Exemption back then as he deemed it unfair but it never reached the floor of Queens Park. The Toronto taxi membership has carried the torch on this issue for over thirty-two years without one iota of help from Toronto City Hall. It is well overdue that City Hall take this issue to Queens Park and demand they live up to their promises as stated in the Toronto Act (2006) by removing the exemption from all Ontario provincial statutes, which would then give the City the authorities to keep out the GTAA members unless they hold a proper and current Toronto
06/07/2012
Page 2 of 2
taxi or livery license. Our membership is requesting the Mayor of Toronto to facilitate a meeting the Premier of Ontario, the Chair of the L&S Committee, Executive Director of Licensing Services and the members of the three man taxi industry committee that has dealt with the Airport Exemption to bring this unfair issue to the table. The Toronto taxi and livery industry members have suffered this discrimination for over three decades and it is overdue that a fair and level playing field be achieved that gives our memberships the rights that are theirs as stated in their municipal licenses and promised by the way by the provincial point-of-pickup legislation as well.
06/07/2012
Page 1 of 2
"Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper" <pm@pm.gc.ca>; "MPP Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty" <reception.leg@opo.gov.on.ca> Cc: "TTIA Louis M Seta" <laliseta@rogers.com>; "Taxi News (1) Mike Beggs" <mikebeggs@rogers.com>; "Taxi News" <taxinews@the-wire.com>; "Peter Zahakos Co-Op Taxi" <peter@co-opcabs.com>; "Peter McSherry" <bigred@ontariointernet.com>; "Peter Chapman" <pristinecarservice@rogers.com>; "MPP NDP Toronto Rosario Marchese" <rmarchese-co@ndp.on.ca>; "MPP NDP Toronto Michael Prue" <mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca>; "MPP Minister of Transportation James J. Bradley" <jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing Jim Watson" <minister.mah@ontario.ca>; "MPP Minister of Labour Peter Fonseca" <pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Minister of Aboriginal Affairs" <bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Tony Ruprecht" <truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Shafiq Qaadri" <sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Monte Kwinter" <mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Mike Colle" <mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Michael Bryant" <mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Mary Anne V. Chambers" <machambers.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Mario Sergio" <msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Lorenzo Berardinetti" <lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Laurel Broten" <lbroten.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Kathleen O.Wynne" <kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Joseph Cordiano" <jcordiano.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Gerry Phillips" <gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Gerard Kennedy" <gkennedy.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto George Smitherman" <gsmitherman.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Donna Cansfield" <dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto David Zimmer" <dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto David Caplan" <dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "MPP Liberal Toronto Bas Balkissoon" <bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org>; "Lawrence Eisenberg" <meisenberg@cpso.on.ca>; "Jim Bell Diamond Taxi" <jimbell.diamondtaxicab@rogers.com>; "Hillel Gudes" <gingig@rogers.com>; "Councillor Suzan Hall" <councillor_hall@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Shelley Carroll" <councillor_carroll@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Sandra Bussin" <sbussin@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Ron Moeser" <councillor_moeser@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Raymond Cho" <councillor_cho@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Peter Milczyn" <councillor_milczyn@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Paula Fletcher" <councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Paul Ainslie" <councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Pam McConnell" <councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Norman Kelly" <councillor_kelly@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Michael Walker" <councillor_walker@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Michael Thompson" <councillor_thompson@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Michael Del Grande" <councillor_delgrande@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Mark Grimes" <councillor_grimes@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Maria Augimeri" <councillor_augimeri@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Vice-Chair Denzil Minnan-Wong" <councillor_minnanwong@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Rob Ford" <councillor_ford@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Mike Feldman" <councillor_feldman@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S David Shiner" <councillor_shiner@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Chair Howard Moscoe" <councillor_moscoe@toronto.ca>; "Councillor L&S Anthony Perruzza" <councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Kyle Rae" <councillor_rae@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Karen Stintz" <councillor_stintz@toronto.ca>; "Councillor John Parker" <councillor_parker@toronto.ca>; "Councillor John Filion" <councillor_filion@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Joe Pantalone" <councillor_pantalone@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Joe Mihevc" <councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Janet Davis" <councillor_davis@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Gord Perks" <councillor_perks@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby" <councillor_lindsay_luby@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker" <councillor_debaeremaeker@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Giorgio Mammoliti" <councillor_mammoliti@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Frank Di Giorgio" <councillor_digiorgio@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Frances Nunziata" <councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Douglas Holyday" <councillor_holyday@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Clifford Jenkins" <councillor_jenkins@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Chin Lee" <councillor_lee@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Cesar Palacio" <councillor_palacio@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Case Ootes" <councillor_ootes@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Brian Ashton" <councillor_ashton@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Bill Saundercook" <councillor_saundercook@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Adam Vaughan" <councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca>; "Councillor Adam Giambrone" <councillor_giambrone@toronto.ca>; "Councillor A.A. Heaps" <councillor_heaps@toronto.ca>; "City Of Toronto Solicitor Michele A Wright" <mwright4@toronto.ca>; "City Of Toronto Mayor David Miller" <mayor_miller@toronto.ca>; "Andy Reti" <taximaven@rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:10 PM Subject: Pearson Airport Exemption Issue Premier McGuinty, To: I watched with interest on tonight's Global news about your comments on the Pearson Airport Exemption Issue. They were all totally false but one in particular was even beyond your usual nonsensical rhetoric
06/07/2012
Page 2 of 2
and that was your concern about environment issues.You stated it would increase emissions dramatically if the airline taxis and limousines had to return to Pearson Airport each and every time without a fare. Let me point out that the GTAA ( Greater Toronto Airport Authority ) has around 750 taxis and limousines that would be returning to the airport empty. The City of Toronto has 750 limousines and over 5,000 taxis that are presently returning from the airport without a fare. Where is the greater environmental issue? When you think how asinine McGuinty's comments are on environmental issues when compared to the lack of controls for emissions from the hundreds of airplanes that leave Pearson Airport each and every day, it shows just how far he is reaching on that one to try to divert anyone's attention to the political favouritism involved in this issue. Why is the province involved in this at all? You presently have legislation in three provincial Acts that deals with airport issues; the Ontario Municipal Act; the Ontario Highway Traffic Act and now the Toronto Act ( 2006 ). Why is your government assisting a private company, the GTAA who issue only permits that have no authority outside the confines of Pearson Airport, to secure additional business for their membership and also involve the province in policing the airport as well? If the GTAA cannot police the airport and take care of their clientele perhaps it is time for Federal Canada through Transport Canada to come in and take back the airport. It certainly is not yours or the provincial government's job to involve yourself at all in airport issues. If the GTAA is unwilling to give fair access to properly licensed Ontario transportation carriers, why are you giving them unfettered access to our markets? To that end I have forward this email to Prime Minister Harper as it is well overdue that his government look into a thirty year history of dirty politics involving a federal jurisdiction. Why are you contradicting your own point-of-pick-up legislation that guarantees the rights of municipalities to license their jurisdictions as they deem fit? If the cities you give these powers to cannot exercise them then why do we have licensing at all? Minister Watson says it is to give choice and I question that hypothesis. To give choice without protection is irresponsible to the taxi and livery public. The GTAA does no driver training or vehicle inspections so you are obviously falling short of the province's responsibilities in this area. Why only two and a half years later has your government reversed its promise to the Toronto taxi and livery industries that your government would not interfere with how Toronto ran its city with the enactment of the Toronto Act ( 2006 )? In the words of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the Honourable John Gerretsen, Toronto is a mature and responsible government capable of running their own affairs. I included that letter in this email. Has this changed? Are they or are they not mature and responsible? Can they or can they not license responsibly? Why the change Premier? Only one conclusion fits all the areas this issue covers and that is a political payoff by the airport interests who made heavy contributions over the past few years to the Liberal war chest and of course with the help of other provincial ministers such as Minister Harinder Takhar who prior to his provincial political career, made his living mostly from the airport transportation industry. It is well overdue that the Province of Ontario get out of the taxi and limousine business and get into the business you are mandated to do and that is give fair legislation to all Ontarians without back room politics and political favouritism. An Ontario citizen should be able to get just results from their elected representatives without having deep pockets to achieve that goal. I remain,
06/07/2012
Page 1 of 1
From: Sent: Subject:
"Gerry Manley" <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> Monday, September 07, 2009 10:25 PM Fw: Pearson Airport Exemption
Premier McGuinty, What you and the provincial Liberal party have done to the hard working men and women in the Toronto taxi and livery industry is nothing short of larceny and the breaking of your government's promise to our membership in 2006. To allow Minister Watson, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing to put the exemption into the Toronto Act (2006) after your government guaranteed our membership this would never happen, is a pure abuse of government authority at an extreme financial hardship to our members and their families. This favours the few drivers from Pearson Airport while without provocation, punishing the thousands of drivers from Toronto. Any government's commitment to the electorate is to represent them all in a fair and just manner. Bringing in laws under three different provincial statutes to protect a private company's membership, the GTAA (Greater Toronto Airport Authority) operating from Pearson Airport, at the expense of thousands of hard working Ontarians certainly plays against that mandate. Your observation of exhaust emissions and Minister Watson's comments of uninterrupted airport service are not only asinine without any factual backing but laughable at best. The only truism in this whole issue that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that you and your provincial Liberal party were bought and paid for by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority brokerages and drivers through rather hefty campaign donations to your party. The general public in Ontario are now learning just how corrupt and ineffective your government truly is. Your fingers have been caught in several pies such as e-health, Ontario lottery corporation, the airport exemption issue and God knows what else but I am sure there is plenty more that will eventually surface. The Liberal members from Toronto should not only be ashamed of themselves but should be immediately removed from their Queens Park seats. Not one of you had the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the 20,000 members of the Toronto taxi and livery industries, that you are alleged to represent, to try to protect them and their families and to have this injustice reversed, which would have once and for all laid a fair and level playing field for everyone involved in this issue. Our industry members and their spouses, children and relatives will have a very long memory when the time for voting on the next provincial government comes along. If any of you are not in jail when this occurs I can guarantee you we will work steadfastly in making sure you don't get re-elected. God does balance the books McGuinty and I guarantee you that you and your corrupt government are going to get your books balanced in the very near future.
06/07/2012
Page 1 of 1
Carol Ramchuram - As Pay of Cabbies Drops, a Bid for Their First Raise in Years - NYTimes.com From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Gerry Manley <gerryhmanley@gmail.com> Louis <laliseta@rogers.com> 7/22/2012 9:03 PM As Pay of Cabbies Drops, a Bid for Their First Raise in Years - NYTimes.com City of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford <mayor_ford@toronto.ca>, ML&S Executive Director Tracey Cook <tcook2@toronto.ca>
Louis, Thanksfortheupdate.AsyoucanseeIsentthistoTraceyCookeforherinformation.IamsuresheisunawarethatpreviousMLSmembersandCouncillors suchasCouncillorMinnanWonghavegonetoNewYorkCityoverthepastcoupleofdecadesandcamebackandimplementedwhatNewYorkCityhad adoptedonsuchthingsasprintingmeterreceipts,whichweknowwasanotherdisasterthatcostourmembershipmillionsofdollarsandwaseventually removedfromthebylaw. TheyalsoadoptedNewYorkCitycameraspecificationsintheoriginalTorontoprogram,whichIfoundoutwereinadequateandtheoriginalcamera suppliers,didn'tevenmeettheTorontospecificationsbutasusualtheCitydidnothingtocorrecttheoriginalmistakes. AlthoughwehavenothadameterincreaseotherthantheHSTincreaseforthegovernment,itwouldbedisastrousatthispointtoimplementonebecause weareheavilyinvolvedinadepressedeconomyandhavelostagreatdealofourcustomerbasebecauseofit.Alsoconsidertheoversupplyoftaxisonour streetsthankstotheCitynotadheringtotheirownlicensingissuingformulaastheywentaheadwiththeAmbassadorprogramwhenwewerealreadyabove thatformulawhentheyissuedmorestandardplatesin1996evenbeforethe1998Ambassadorprogramwasstarted. OneotherthingthathasbeenbroughttomyattentionandIhopetoGoditisnotthetruthisthatCouncillorDenzilMinnanWongwillbetheoverseerfor theTaxiReformationReportsandImplementationsasfarastheexecutivecommitteeisconcerned.SinceheandMoscoewerethearchitectsofthevast majorityofthepresentwoesinourindustrytoday,thattrulywouldbethefinalnailonourcoffiniftrue. IbelieveIwillalsosendthistoMayorFordaswellasheaboveallpeopleshouldknowthehistoryofMinnanWongbecausehewasaL&SCommittee memberwhenalotofthiswentdownandhopefullyhewillreflectonthisandnothaveMinnanWongoverseeanytaxiissuestotheirfinalresolvenowor anyothertimeinthefuture. GerryManley Phone:(416)9481921 Email:gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website:http://www.taxidriversafety.net
From:LouisMSeta<laliseta@rogers.com> Date:Sun,22Jul201208:21:200400 To:GerraldHManley<gerryhmanley@gmail.com>,TaxiNews<john@taxinews.com> Subject:AsPayofCabbiesDrops,aBidforTheirFirstRaiseinYearsNYTimes.com

PlannedNewYorkCityMeterrateincreaseof17%.Whatthisarticledoesn'tsayiswhatistheplannedshiftrateincrease?Inthesetougheconomictimeis thisawisemove?Willitdrivepeopleoutofcabs? Sincerely LouisM.Seta http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/nyregion/cabbiesmeterskeeprunningbutthefaresbarelymakeendsmeet.html
07/30/2012
14 August 2012 Mr. Louis Seta Hailo - Driver Partner 219 Queen St. E. Toronto, Ontario M5A 1S2 Dear Louis, I want to thank you for your candor during our recent phone conversations about Hailo and its operations and how it will service the taxi using public in the City of Toronto as well as its interaction with the members of the Toronto Taxi industry. Because of the way the City of Toronto has dealt with our industry over the past 50 years especially in issuing over 1,000 additional taxis licenses, which cannot be financially supported due to a poor economy as well as a diminishing client base, it is very important for our members to find new innovative and cost effective ways to enhance their earning capabilities. I believe it is self evident that the City will not take the required steps to streamline our taxi fleet to the point of not only providing quality service to the consumer but to also give the taxi driver a reasonable opportunity to earn a living, because that will cost them licensing revenues. In my almost 40 years in the Toronto Taxi Industry, evolution has been commonplace. When I began my career, business radios had not been on the scene for that long and there were still some post phones being used to dispatch orders. For the next 3 decades, brokerages used those business radios to dispatch company orders and then computerized dispatch services arrived and have been in our marketplace for about 10 years now. Now Hailo and other APP companies have arrived and it is my opinion, they are the next step in our industrys evolution and growth. As you are aware, when something new arrives in the Toronto Taxi Industry there are always questions and first on the list from our membership would be Are APPS Too Expensive? That question deserves an answer and I believe my fellow members will be quite surprised at what I have turned up in regards to costs of APPS as compared to what our members are now paying if they belong to a current Toronto Taxi Brokerage.
For an APPS company to operate legally in the City of Toronto they require a brokerage license, which Hailo has informed me they have secured. You will require an Android based or I Phone to operate in these systems, as the required APP software is not compatible with Blackberry phones. You will also require a data plan to receive your calls making the cost of the phone and data plan somewhere in the area of $40 to $60 per month depending on who is your supplier. Considering almost everyone in the Toronto Taxi Industry has a cell phone of some sort, it will not be a very large increase in what you presently pay to upgrade to the needed phone and data plan. Hailo charges a 15% fee for each transaction. For that fee you are given access to all of their calls, which are dispatched by GPS (Global Positioning System) to the nearest clear car. There are no up front fees and you pay as you go. For any cancelled or unable to locate call, you will be compensated $5.00 and payment for fares done are paid weekly directly into your bank account accompanied by a statement that reflects that payment. Now lets take a look at what the costs of doing business with a brokerage adds up to. Obviously Economy Of Scale is something that is unheard of in a Toronto taxi brokerage. It is ludicrous to believe that brokers dues for a taxi brokerage with 150 taxis and one with over 2,000 taxis are within $50 to $100 of each other but in fact that is the case with those fees being around the $500 per month range. It has always been my position that all brokerage fees should be inclusive as to what the brokerage provides to the broker and/or taxi driver but that is not the case. On top of the brokerage fees there are cash-in fees applied to Visas, Master Cards American Express and with some brokerages, debit as well. That usually is around 6% to 8% to the broker if you want payment at the end of the 30-day period but you can leave then for up to 45 to 60 days depending on the brokerage you work from and receive full payment and that does not include the costs for the debit and credit machine. This of course does not apply to the taxi driver who works from a cash-in or drives for someone independently. This driver is charged anywhere from 8% to 10% by the fleet or independent owner for all charges that are handed in to them and they in turn profit from either the lower brokerage cash-in fee if they want their money immediately or leave it for the required time and profit the entire cash-in fee they have charged their drivers. After speaking to several brokers, I ascertained that cash-in fees for early payment can be somewhere between $75 and $150 per month so I am going to take an amount of $100 per month for the purpose of this article. Add that to your $500 monthly brokerage fee, you are now paying $600 per month or $7,200 per year to the brokerage.
2
For you to attain the 15% cash in fee given by the APP companies the brokers would have to earn just under $45,000 per year for their annual brokerage fees of $7,200 and all of those earnings would have to be obtained exclusively from the brokerage. What our brokerage members are not considering is that they do not attain all of their revenues from the brokerage therefore the question arises as to what are they truly paying for that service? For example, if your gross earnings are that $45,000 we previously mentioned and 25% of that is made through other sources such as your own personal clients and pick-ups, your brokerage earnings are now $33,750. Seeing as the $7,200 annual brokerage fees are up front and stay constant regardless of sick time, holidays etc. you are now paying just over 21.3% for each order. If your outside revenues are one-third of your $45,000 then your brokerage earnings are now $30,000, you are now paying 24% for each order you receive. What each individual broker and driver needs to do is keep a log as to what orders they are given by the brokerage and what orders they generate themselves and do the math. The lower your gross, the higher the percentage you will be paying to the brokerage for your orders and I can guarantee you it will well exceed the 15% that the new Hailo APP will cost. Are there any additional savings to be had by using APPS? The answer to that is yes. When they have sufficiently grown their business to the point that the brokerage drivers and brokers feel comfortable in leaving their existing taxi brokerages, that expense is gone. This will reflect in lower shift prices for the driver and less costs for the standard plate lessee if they package through a brokerage because the 15% APPS charge is dealt with directly with the individual user while their present costs reflect that brokerage fee. Much of the hassle dealing with the present day existing brokerages will be gone as well. I believe we have all dealt with adverse conditions here and came away with the thought that we were treated less than professionally. It compares with working in a dictatorship where you have no rights although it is you that are paying the operating costs of that brokerage. Some members have informed me that they have been handed back credit charge slips that they handed in with an authorization number saying they are no good and to add insult to injury, they are assessed fines for that, some being as high as $50. I would suggest that if that occurs to you that you report this to the MLS as that is not only unfair but illegal as well. Remember, the credit card order you were given was dispatched by the brokerage; the debit and credit card machine is in the name of the brokerage never mind the fact that you are mandated to service the order as per company rules and regulations plus the fact you handed it in with an authorization number. Any dispute is the responsibility of the brokerage in this case, not the driver. APPS companies guarantee payment and any dispute is dealt with by them.
There was also a recent case in the United States where companies were directly charging the client a fee for using credit cards and Visa, Master card etc. took those companies to court and the credit companies lost. Although the laws in the United States are somewhat different than the ones in Canada, companies in our country are lobbying for the same rights. If successful, there would be no service charges to the drivers as the companies would bill the consumer directly thus increasing the drivers revenues. Yes, I do have additional concerns regarding consumer service and taxi driver protections with the new APP, but this article deals only with the mathematics of this issue and it is crystal clear that brokerages have been extorting excessive revenues from the Toronto Taxi Industry members for decades and it needs to be stopped and the new APP certainly has the capability to diminish the drivers and brokers costs of operation and perhaps in the near future eliminate them in their entirety. It has been brought to my attention by many of our members that some of the brokerages they work in have told them they are not allowed to become involved with the new APPS. This is unfair and I believe the City of Toronto has a fiduciary duty to protect the rights of the drivers they license. The new APPS in no way interferes with the brokerage business that they currently are involved with but does give these drivers an additional source of income to supplement their earnings. This City duty also relates to agents. I have no issue with agents being in our industry as I believe they serve an important service but I do have problems if they take the same position on APPS. This could occur as many of these agents lease the plates under their control demanding that the lessee put it into a particular brokerage where outside APPS may not be allowed. This particular brokerage mandate has occurred for years, which enhances the agents profits. The lessee should be able to take the leased plate anywhere in the City they want to and seek out the most cost effective ways to run their business while taking advantage of new business opportunities. I remain,
Gerald H. Manley
Page 1 of 1
taxireview - LICENSING REVENUES OWED TO THE TORONTO TAXI INDUSTRY
Gerry Manley <gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net> taxireview <taxireview@toronto.ca> 8/19/2012 3:46 PM LICENSING REVENUES OWED TO THE TORONTO TAXI INDUSTRY 19Aug21 (A) Licensing Revenues Owed to the Toronto Taxi Industry.doc; 19Aug12 (B) Licensing Revenues Owed to the Toronto Taxi Industry.doc
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

08/20/2012
19 August 2012
Covering Email For Licensing Revenues Owed to the Toronto Taxi Industry
Mayor Ford, I have personally received several enquiries from fellow taxi industry members asking me if I know what is happening at the Toronto Taxi School as far as who has to attend what course and what you pay if anything. The MLS has arbitrarily categorized our members differently in some areas with some of those categorizations not found in the Licensing Bylaw 545 nor the costs applied to those courses found in the 2012 Toronto Licensing Schedule of Fees. Staff, is apparently doing as they wish without any supervision from council as some of their implementations appear to be done without authority and done arbitrarily. What are the MLS Committee and staff authorities? No one I talked to at city hall appears to know. Staff at the MLS told me that they are not regularly notified of changes sometimes for weeks and months and they dont even know what happens day-to-day on some issues. As the attachment will show, the City of Toronto through MLS staff and MLS Committee members has for decades applied excessive, improper and illegal licensing fees with the predominant amount of those fees coming from the Toronto Taxi Industry. This unjust and criminal activity must cease immediately and the three issues I mention in the attachment amount to approximately $7,000,000 of those excessive, unjust and illegal fees, which belong to the Toronto Taxi Industry Membership and must be returned immediately. If the City is to live up to the promise of Councillor Palacio, Chair of the Municipal licensing & Standards Committee in dealing with the ongoing reformation meetings for the Toronto taxi Industry in a clear and transparent manner, than it is self-evident that the return of those licensing revenues is the first place to start.
19 August 2012 Mayor Rob Ford Office of the Mayor City Hall 2nd Floor 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Mayor Ford, As you are aware, presently there are reformation meetings ongoing in regards to the Citys taxi Industry with the hope that all of the outstanding issues will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. There is one issue that I do not believe can be resolved at those meetings and requires a total council involvement and that is outstanding taxi licensing revenues that are owed to the members of the Toronto taxi industry. Several years ago, a city audit brought forward the fact that numerous required city business licenses and been overcharged to the tune of $8,000,000 plus. It was estimated that approximately $6,500,000 of those fees belonged to the Toronto taxi industry. Even though our industry members requested that city hall return those overcharges, we never received a reimbursement of any kind. During Mayor Millers regime, the PVT (Private Vehicle Tax) was instituted and our membership made a point of enquiring whether taxi owners would have to pay this tax. Councillors on the Licensing & Standards Committee of the time assured us that we were exempt due to the fact our vehicles are used for commercial purpose and were not a private vehicle as required by the bylaw. Those promises were not kept and the Private Vehicle Tax was charged to our taxi owners who resided in the City of Toronto. For over 3 years, I wrote numerous letters to the Mayors office and all city councillors to have that requirement removed from the bylaw for taxi owners and that illegally applied licensing tax to be returned. Eventually Mayor Millers council did admit the mistake and reimbursed 1 year of the tax but 2 years are still outstanding. I have corresponded with you personally on this issue and for some unknown reason this has been sent as an issue to be dealt with by the L&S Committee during the reformation meetings. A strange course of action seeing as this committee nor its staff would not have the authority to return those funds or any other licensing overcharges for that matter as that would require an order of council.
Now, the L&S Committee and MLS staff has arbitrarily adopted an additional overcharge of licensing fees. The mandated refresher and CPR/First Aid courses are now being applied to taxi owners, not just taxi drivers. The City in its infinite wisdom under Article VIII 545 (130) makes certain taxi owners have to attend these courses by stating Driver A driver of a cab who is licensed as such or required to be licensed as such under this chapter and includes an owner who drivers a cab. With this in mind 545, 131 B 1(A) mandates a taxi owner to attend the refresher course and 545, 131 B (b) states the taxi owner must attend the CPR/First Aid Course. It is interesting to point out that the definition for taxi driver under 545 (130) that includes a taxi owner driver is in contradiction of at least 2 other sections of the bylaw. Licence Requirements 545-2 A (9) states Every Owner and every driver of a cab. Licence Requirements 545-2 B Applicability to owners and drivers of cabs. As you can see these sections clearly define cab drivers and cab owners as separate identities, which brings into question the purposes for the different definitions. Taxi Owners are charged $120.00 + $15.60 H.S.T. = $135.60 for the refresher course and $55.00 + $7.15 = $62.15 for the first aid course. Taxi owners strongly object to these charges and feel the refresher course charge is unwarranted as a taxi drivers annual renewal fee includes that course charge so why is that not applied to taxi owners, considering the City has categorized us as taxi drivers for the purpose of attending these courses as stated in Article Viii 545 (130)? Nowhere in the January 1, 2012 Licensing Fee Schedule does it state additional licensing charges are to be applied to our members for either the refresher or CPR/First Aid courses. The MLS has taken this a step further. They have now arbitrarily created a third licensing category, taxi owner non-driver. MLS staff is now having these owners sign an affidavit that they will not drive and that signature removes their mandate to attend the CPR/First Aid course as well as not having to attend the second day of the refresher course. There isnt anything in the bylaw that allows this, nor was there any consultation with the industry. Seeing as staff has implemented this subjectively, it brings up the question as to what do the authorities of the Executive Director and her staff entail? Also consider that the affidavit was signed at times after the second day of the course and after the course fees for both the refresher course and CPR/First Aid courses have been paid. The new categorized owner non-driver received no assurance that those fees would be returned. It was also brought to light that in the future, the owner non-driver would be assessed the full $135.60 refresher course fee even thought they are only requested to attend one day of the course. If the City requires its taxi drivers and owners to attend these courses then the costs as per the bylaw must be included in the renewal fee without additional course charges. I am sure that if the City takes the position that these courses are not achieving the desired results as stated by our members, then the reimbursement of these course charges maybe overlooked by our membership. I feel by the steps taken by the MLS of eliminating the requirement of the standard taxi owner non-driver attendance at the 2nd day of the refresher course clearly demonstrates that these courses do not reach the effectiveness that they are portraying and should be taken out of the bylaw in their entirety.
In all 3 cases I have outlined, the City has violated their own bylaws and the trust that all citizens of Toronto expect from their elected representatives. These funds must be returned to our membership as to do otherwise, amounts to nothing less than an abuse of authority and outright theft. We pay the highest licensing fees in the world and there is a reason why. The MLS is mandated for the most part to be financially self-sufficient. They gain approximately 65% of their required operating capital, nearly $10,000,000 from the taxi industry. If MLS had to obtain their financial requirements from the general tax pool and justify their budget, I am positive staff and programs would be dramatically reduced because dollars would not be the primary focus when MLS considers what staff and programs need to be adopted in dealing with our industry. Councillor Palacio, Chair of the Licensing & Standards Committee has stated that the present taxi reformation meetings will be conducted in a clear and transparent manner. Well Councillor Palacio, Mayor Ford and all sitting Toronto Councillors, it is time to walk the walk instead of just talking the talk or is your modus operandi amount to do as I say, not what I do? This report clearly shows that the City of Toronto owes its taxi membership several millions of dollars and we want it back either by cheque or applied to future license renewals. I remain,
Gerald H. Manley

Gerry Manley

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gerry Manley

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gerald H. Manley Taxi Owner, Plate# 416 105 Rowena Drive, Apt.

405 Toronto, Ontario M3A 1R2

Gerald H. Manley 416-948-1921

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

taxireview - 2012 Taxi Review

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

Meeting: The Standard Taxicab Owner's Licence

Friday, April 27, 2012, 9 am - 12 pm

taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings

taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net

gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net

Standard Taxi Owners Requested Agenda At Upcoming Reformation Meetings

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Part of Ministry Dealing With Disability Act

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Standard Taxi Owners Requested Agenda At Upcoming Reformation Meetings

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Accessibility Directorate of Ontario Part of Ministry Dealing With Disability Act

Ontario Regulation 191/11 Definitions Section 33 Scroll Down to Taxicab http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1

Ontario Regulation 429/07 Schedule 2 Section 5 http://www.search.e-laws.gov.on.ca/en/isysquery/d34a43db-61c0-4730-91e6bf7180eb3ca1/2/doc/?search=browseStatutes&context=#hit1

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

(05/03/2012) taxireview - Toronto Taxi Major Stakeholders Meetings

From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: To All,

taxireview - Bill #26 Savings & Restructuring Act (1996)

From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments:

taxireview - 2012 Taxi Review

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

Meeting: The Standard Taxicab Owner's Licence

Friday, April 27, 2012, 9 am - 12 pm

taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings

taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

Gerry Manley Phone: (416) 948-1921 E-mail: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net

gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: http://www.taxidriversafety.net

taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings

taxireview - Taxi Reformation Meetings _ Standard Taxi Owners

From: To: Date: Subject: CC:

(05/17/2012) taxireview - Your Submissions

From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: Taxi Review,

(05/17/2012) taxireview - Your Submissions

(05/17/2012) taxireview - Your Submissions

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Tel: (416) 948-1921 Email: gerry.manley@taxidriversafety.net gerryhmanley@gmail.com Website: www.taxidriversafety.net

Urban Development Services Paula M. Dill, Commissioner

Status of the Implementation of the Taxi Reforms (1998) BRIEFING NOTE

Prepared by: Mark Dimuantes

Date: January 13, 2004