.

SUPREME COURT
9f.5?,T,sH COLUMBIA
VANCOUVER REGISTRY

NOV 04 2014

S- 148 496
No.
Vancouver Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

YELLOW CAB COMPANY LTD.,BLACK TOP CABS LTD., MACLURE'S CABS

(1984)LTD. AND VANCOUVER TAXI LTD.
PLAINTIFFS
AND:
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., UBER B.V., UBER CANADA LTD., RASIER
OPERATIONS B.V., RASIER LLC, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, AND PERSONS
UNKNOWN
DEFENDANTS
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the plaintiffs for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time
for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry
of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any
new parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the
time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of
civil claim was served on you,
(b) if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a copy of the filed
notice of civil claim was served on you,
(c) if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim
was served on you, or

{GLGM-00035770;9}

2
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time.

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFFS

Part 1:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Parties
1.

The Plaintiffs are four taxi companies based in the City of Vancouver (the "City").

2.

The Plaintiffs are licensed and lawfully entitled to operate under the British Columbia
Passenger Transportation Act, SBC 2004, c 39 ("Passenger Transportation Acf or the
"Act") and comply with all applicable Vancouver city by-laws, including By-Law No.
6066, A By-law for licensing and regulating the owners and drivers of vehicles for hire in
the City of Vancouver ("City By-Laws").

3.

The Defendant Uber Technologies Inc. is incorporated under the laws of Delaware, United
States of America. It is headquartered at 182 Howard Street, Suite 8, San Francisco, CA
94105.

4.

Uber Technologies Inc. ("Uber") operates globally, in collaboration with and through
various subsidiary and associated companies. It currently coordinates, directs and operates
commercial transportation vehicle services operations in North America, Central and South
America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

5.

The Defendant Uber Canada Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uber. Uber Canada Inc.
is located in Toronto, Ontario, with a head office at 100 King Street West, Suite 6100, 1
First Canadian Place, Toronto ON, M5X 1B8. It is incorporated under the laws of Canada.

6.

Uber Canada Inc. is registered under the laws of British Columbia, but is currently in the
process of having its registration cancelled.

7.

The Defendant Rasier LLC is located at 706 Mission Street, 9th floor, San Francisco, CA,
94103.

8.

The Defendants Uber B.V. and Raiser Operations B.V. are located at Barbara Strozzilaan
101, 1083 HN Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

9.

Uber B.V., Uber Canada Ltd., Rasier Operations B.V., Rasier LLC, and all affiliated
companies, are owned or controlled by Uber. Uber seeks to operate a commercial vehicle
transportation service in the Province of British Columbia, including, in particular, the
City.

10.

The Defendants John Doe, Jane Doe and Persons Unknown (the "Defendant Drivers")
represent presently unidentified drivers of Uber vehicles in the City.

3
The Nature of the Claim
11.

In B.C., all commercial transportation vehicle services must comply with the Passenger
Transportation Act and Passenger Transportation Regulation, while commercial
transportation vehicle services operating in Vancouver must additionally comply with all
applicable City By-laws.

12.

As detailed below, the commercial passenger transportation industry is highly regulated,

in the interests of maintaining safe, efficient, consistent and accountable taxi and
commercial passenger transportation services.

13.

The Defendants seeks to enter the car-for-hire market without complying with these laws,
by-laws, standards and regulations.

14.

The Passenger Transportation Board has issued statements to the effect that Uber and
similar so-called "ride-sharing" arrangements are operating unlawfully, outside of the
scheme set up to regulate for-hire car services in the Province.

15.

The taxi licensing and regulation system in B.C. and Vancouver imposes significant costs
on those companies and drivers lawfully providing commercial passenger transportation
services. These regulations are primarily designed to ensure the safety, accessibility and
security of consumers. These are not laws of general application, but laws specifically
designed to regulate the commercial vehicle services industry.

16.

The Defendants have chosen not to comply with these regulations, meant for the protection
and wellbeing of the public. By refusing to comply with the safeguards, standards,
regulations and licensing requirements in place for the taxi industry in B.C. and Vancouver,
the Defendants purport to set themselves above the laws of the Province and City.

17.

The Defendants' actual or intended unlawful conduct places the Plaintiffs, who operate in
accordance with the law, at a significant competitive disadvantage, and will directly cause
the Plaintiffs to lose customers, revenue and market share.

18.

If the Defendants are permitted to flout the law of the Province and City, the inevitable
result for the law-abiding Plaintiffs will be serious economic damage.

Regulation of the Commercial Passenger Services Market

19.

The commercial passenger transportation services market in BC is regulated under the

Passenger Transportation Act.

20.

The Act establishes a scheme for a regulated, safe and efficient taxi system in British
Columbia.

21.

The Passenger Transportation Board (the "Board") is a tribunal established under the Act.

22.

The Board makes decisions on applications for taxi licences and sets the terms and
conditions of taxi licences, including operating areas, maximum fleet sizes and other
related matters. The Board is also empowered to review decisions of the Registrar
operating pursuant to the Act and Regulations.

23.

Commercial transportation vehicles under the Act are defined as those operated "by or on
behalf of a person who charges or collects compensation for the transportation of
passengers in that motor vehicle".

24.

Section 23 of the Act requires a person who operates a commercial passenger vehicle to
have a valid licence for commercial passenger transportation services, to have a valid safety
certificate, and to operate in compliance with all applicable laws.

25.

A commercial transportation vehicle must operate in compliance with the terms and
conditions of the licence, the rates approved or set by the Board and the terms of the Act
and the regulations.

26.

Under the Act, a person must not provide, or hold himself or herself out as able to provide,
a service that involves the operation of a motor vehicle as a type of commercial passenger
vehicle unless that person is a licensee whose licence includes the authorization necessary
for that type of operation.

27.

Section 59 empowers the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations under the
Act. The Passenger Transportation Regulation, BC Reg 266/2004 (the "Regulations")
passed under the Act imposes a range of mandatory requirements on persons providing
commercial vehicles services.

28.

Sections 46-48 of the Act provides a range of penalties for licensees who breach the
provisions of the Act or Regulations, including fines, orders relating to the operation of
commercial vehicles under the licence, and licence revocation.

29.

The penalties found under sections 46-48 may only be imposed on a "licensee", as defined
under the Act. Where a commercial vehicle operator deliberately flouts the requirement to
become a licensee, these penalties are either not available or will have no practical effect.
The revocation of a licence, for instance, cannot constitute a meaningful deterrent to a
person who refuses to acknowledge the applicability of Act, or the lawful authority of the
Board.

30.

Section 57 of the Act provides that a contravention of the Act constitutes an offence. The
penalties for committing such an offence are fines ranging from $1000 to $5000 per
offence.

31.

To operate a commercial passenger vehicle in the City of Vancouver, taxis must be licensed
by the City.

32.

The City grants licences under the Vehicles for Hire By-law No. 6066 (the "City By-law").

33.

The Act, Regulations and City By-law together impose a scheme of duties and
responsibilities on all lawful commercial passenger transportation vehicles offering
commercial transportation services in the City. These standards are intended primarily to
ensure the safety, quality and public accessibility of commercial vehicle services.

34.

The By-laws require commercial transportation vehicles to be maintained in a condition

suitable for passenger transportation; licensees to pay fees and adhere to minimum service
levels; a certain percentage of licensed vehicles to have wheelchair access; all licensed
vehicles to be equipped with a radio, taximeter, GPS and an illuminated sign; all licensed
vehicles to keep records of services provided; and prohibit licensed vehicles from refusing
a trip.

35.

The Act and Regulations require commercial transportation vehicles to be equipped with
cameras; to have a certain number of wheelchair accessible vehicles; to be equipped with
a meter; to pay licensing fees; to have special licences for accessible taxis; to operate "ecofriendly" taxis; to be in safe operating condition; to comply with the mobile applications
policy; and to not refuse a trip.

36.

The fees chargeable by all commercial transportation vehicles licensed under the Provincial
scheme are set by the Board, and commercial transportation vehicles are prohibited from
charging more, or less, than the amount set under the Board's lawful authority.

37.

The BC Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996, c 318, section 3, requires insurance adequate for
the vehicle being operated. The insurance for those lawfully operating commercial
passenger transportation vehicles is higher than for normal vehicles.

38.

The Motor Vehicle Act Regulations, BC Reg 26/58, Division 24-25, requires a vehicle
inspection for all licensed commercial transportation vehicles every 6 months.

39.

Adhering to this overlapping regulatory scheme imposes significant direct and indirect
costs on the law-abiding taxi operators in the Province and City, including the Plaintiffs.
The regulatory schemes substantially increase both the start-up capital costs, ongoing
operating costs, and overall costs of operating a lawful commercial transportation vehicle.

40.

Moreover, abiding by the fee schedule established by the Board, which applies to all
lawfully operating commercial transportation services in the Province, prevents the
Plaintiffs from fairly and effectively competing with commercial transportation services
that operate outside of the legal scheme.

6
Uber's Conduct and Intended Conduct
41.

Uber's service involves using a mobile phone application to connect users/customers with
cars and drivers who then provide commercial vehicle transportation services for a fee.

42.

Uber engages drivers, pays those drivers and sets the prices for its taxi service.

43.

Before accessing the services provided by Uber, users/customers must download the
smartphone application, set up an Uber account, and provide credit card information for
billing purposes.

44.

In or around 2012, Uber began providing passenger transportation services in Vancouver

for a fee.

45.

On or around November 23, 2012, the Passenger Transportation Board issued an industry
notice entitled "Regulatory Concerns Associated with the Use of Smartphone Applications
(Apps) and Non-compliance with Passenger Rates" (the "Notice").

46.

That Notice stated that certain taxi operators and drivers may be providing independent
services through a smartphone application, and charging rates that were not approved by
the Board. The Board indicated in the Notice that such a practices is "contrary to the
Passenger Transportation Act, undermines rate structures in place and could result in
destructive competition".

47.

The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, Passenger Transportation Branch also

issued a release clarifying the rules surrounding the operation and use of commercial
passenger transportation vehicles in BC, entitled "Passenger Transportation Rates and
Smartphone Applications (Apps)", on or around November 28, 2012 (the "Release").

48.

That Release noted that these smartphone applications "are now being used to connect
passengers and commercial transportation operators", and that any licensed holders who
use smartphones in this manner "must ensure that they advertise and charge their approved
rates".

49.

The Release further encouraged private companies to familiarize themselves with the
regulatory environment in B.C., including the minimum/maximum fee rate structure, and
noted that the regulation of rates "provides stability and safety in the passenger
transportation industry".

50.

Uber was thereby informed by the Passenger Transportation Board and Provincial Ministry
that it was not lawfully permitted to provide services in British Columbia if it failed or
refused to comply with the Provincial licensing scheme, including the fee schedule required
under that scheme.

51.

Uber discontinued its services in the City in late 2012 or early 2013.

7
52.

The City of Vancouver's Standing Committee of Council on Planning, Transportation and

Environment held a meeting Municipal on October 1, 2014, discussing Uber's possible
expansion into the City. By motion, the City affirmed "its commitment to ensure
Vancouver's taxi service remains an industry leader in the provision of safe, timely,
economical, accessible, green and innovative service".

53.

In the motion, which was unanimously carried, the City has issued a six-month moratorium
on the issuance of any new licences for the operation of taxi services in the City.

54.

As a result, Uber is aware that it is not permitted to operate lawfully in Vancouver.

55.

Nevertheless, Uber intends to resume operation as a commercial passenger transportation

vehicle service in the City.

56.

Uber has advertised job postings for drivers and various management and/or administrative
positions in the City. It has posted online positions for a marketing manager, an operations
and logistics manager and a general manager, all of which are to be based in Vancouver.

57.

The Marketing Manager position is stated to entail "growing our user base and brand
awareness in Vancouver". The General Manager posting indicates that the successful
candidate will work "with Uber's Launch team to launch Uber in your city" (i.e.
Vancouver), and will "Continue to grow REVENUES and RIDERSHIP!!!"

58.

In the above job postings, Uber states that successful applicants will have the "rare
opportunity to change the world such that everyone around you is using the product you
built". In the posting for the Marketing Manager position, Uber states that "we [Uber]
won't stop until all of Vancouver is riding Uber".

59.

Uber has already begun engaging drivers for the purposes of operating a commercial
vehicle service in the City.

60.

These postings and new employees confirm Uber's intention to begin operating in
Vancouver imminently.

61.

Uber has not applied for taxi licences in the Province.

62.

Uber has not applied for taxi licences in the City.

63.

Uber has indicated it will begin by offering free services to customers in Vancouver.
Thereafter, Uber intends to operate a for-fee service in Vancouver.

8
The Defendants have conspired to injure the Plaintiffs through unlawful means, in violation
of the Passenger Transportation Act and City By-Laws
64.

The Defendant Uber and Defendant Drivers have entered into an agreement to provide
commercial passenger transportation services in the Province and City.

65.

Uber has met with prospective drivers in Vancouver. Uber has provided those drivers with
the technology, information, direction and advertising material required in order to be an
official Uber driver.

66.

Uber will collect the fares and will pay the drivers.

67.

The Defendants have not obtained licences from either the Board or the City, and operating
without such licences is in an unlawful contravention of the legal regime set up to monitor
and regulate commercial vehicle services in the Province and City.

68.

The Defendants have openly refused to comply with the laws, standards and regulations
set out by the Province and City, including the fixed rate charge for services.

69.

The Defendants are aware that licences to operate commercial vehicles, and compliance
with the various laws, regulations and standards of commercial transportation services, are
required by law. The Defendants are also aware that that they are unlicensed, and are
therefore not permitted to lawfully operate a commercial transportation service.

70.

Nevertheless, the Defendants intend to operate commercial passenger transportation

vehicles in deliberate violation of the Act and City By-Laws.

71.

The Defendants' unlawful conduct will economically injure the Plaintiffs. Offering free
services, in particular, is obviously calculated to economically weaken the competitive
position of the Plaintiffs.

72.

The Defendants know, or should know, that cutting costs through non-compliance with
various regulatory and safety standards established by law, and providing illegal services
in direct competition with the law-abiding Plaintiffs, will cause serious harm to the
Plaintiffs, in the form of a loss of market share and goodwill, the diminution of the value
of the valid taxi licences, and lost revenues and profits.

73.

The Defendants know that injury to the Plaintiffs is the inevitable result of the Defendants'
concerted unlawful actions and intend to injure the Plaintiffs.

The Defendants unlawfully conspired contrary to s. 45 of the Competition Act

74.

The Defendant Uber has conspired and is conspiring with the Defendant Drivers to set the
price for commercial taxi services provided through the Uber web application.

9
75.

The Defendant Uber sets and collects the fares, and subsequently pays the drivers.

76.

The Drivers have no ability to set the fares for the provision of commercial transportation
vehicle services.

77.

Section 45 of the Competition Act makes it an offence for two competitors to agree to fix,
maintain, increase or control the price for the supply of a product or service.

78.

As a result, the Defendant Uber has unlawfully conspired with the Defendant Drivers to
fix prices of commercial vehicle services in violation of section 45 of the Competition Act.

79.

In furtherance of their civil conspiracy and their conspiracy under section 45 of the
Competition Act, the Defendants, inter alia, committed and continue to commit the
following acts:
a. Requiring Uber Drivers to charge certain undifferentiated fees set by Uber;
b. Requiring Uber Drivers to charge set fees different from those required to be
charged by the Provincial Board authorized under the Passenger Transportation
Act.
c. Soliciting and engaging Drivers for the Uber service, primarily from established
Taxi Companies.

80.

The Defendant Uber takes the position that drivers are independent contractors and not
employees of Uber. As independent contractors, the drivers are in competition with one
another. They are therefore prohibited by section 45 of the Competition Act from
commonly setting and fixing prices for their services.

81.

The Defendants are aware, or should be aware, that by engaging in the illegal price fixing,
contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act, that injury, harm and damage inevitably will
result to the Plaintiffs.

82.

Uber and the Defendant Drivers have obtained or will obtain the benefits of the unlawful
conspiracy.

83.

The unlawful acts of the Defendants have or will unduly lessened lawful competition in
the B.C. and the City commercial transportation services industry.

84.

These unlawful acts taken by the Defendants necessarily do or will prevent the Plaintiffs
from engaging in fair and lawful market competition, because the Plaintiffs operate under
various regulatory burdens - including the charging of fares at levels fixed by the Board.

10
The Defendants Have Been or Will Be Enriched by their Unlawful Acts at the Expense of the
Plaintiffs
85.

The Defendants have engaged or will engage in deliberate and unlawful conduct, contrary
to the Passenger Transportation Act and Regulations; the City By-laws; and/or in breach
of the Competition Act.

86.

As a direct and unavoidable result of this conduct, the Defendants' will receive a benefit
in the form of fares, profits, goodwill and market share, derived from the commercial
passenger transportation market in the City.

87.

As a direct and unavoidable result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs will
be correspondingly deprived of fares, profits, goodwill and market share. As the Plaintiffs
collectively represent the only commercial transportation vehicles authorized by law to
operate in the City, there is a direct and inevitable deprivation, which corresponds directly
to the Defendants' enrichment.

88.

There is no lawful justification for this benefit and corresponding deprivation. The
Defendants are deliberately operating outside of the legal regimes set up to monitor and
regulate commercial vehicles services in the Province and City. The Defendants'
deliberately unlawful conduct cannot constitute a valid reason for their enrichment at the
law-abiding Plaintiffs' expense.

89.

For the same reasons, the Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution for revenues and profits
derived from the Defendants deliberate unlawful conduct. The Defendants have or intend
to commit a legal wrong, and are obtaining or will obtain a benefit from that unlawful
conduct at the Plaintiffs' expense.

The Defendant Uber is passing itself off as a lawfully operating "Vancouver Taxi" service
90.

The Trademarks Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13, prohibits a person from directing "public
attention to his wares, services or business in such a way as to cause or be likely to cause
confusion in Canada, at the time he commenced so to direct attention to them, between his
wares, services or business and the wares, services or business of another" and prohibits
the commission of "any other act or adopt any other business practice contrary to honest
industrial or commercial usage in Canada".

91.

The extensive regulatory regime surrounding the provision of lawful commercial

transportation services in the Province and City imposes certain universal standards of
quality which are adhered to by all of the Plaintiff companies, with respect to both the
vehicles used and services provided. This shared standard of quality service is associated
with the services provided by the Plaintiffs ("Vancouver Taxi Services").

92.

Although competitors in the provision of commercial transportation vehicle services in the

City, the Plaintiffs collectively have created a shared reputation build up around the

11
Vancouver Taxi Services product, through their common adherence to the laws and
quality-control standards established by the Province and City with respect to the provision
of commercial transportation services.
93.

For over 50 years, the Plaintiffs or some of them have provided Vancouver Taxi Services
in accordance with the laws and regulations of the City and Province.

94.

The Defendants seek to operate a commercial vehicle transportation service in the City of
Vancouver. Uber markets itself as a form of taxi services in direct competition with
established taxi services.

95.

When persons hire taxi cabs in the City, they are generally aware of the basic standard of
service that must be provided and that they will obtain a certain standard of quality service
associated with the Plaintiffs' services. These standards are familiar to all users of
Vancouver Taxi Services, exactly because they required by law, as set out above and in the
applicable Acts, Regulations and City By-Laws. This is the common Vancouver Taxi
Services product provided by the Plaintiffs.

96.

When users obtain taxi services in the City, they expect this distinctive and common quality
of service, and associate this distinctive and common quality of services with the Plaintiff
companies.

97.

This common quality of service is offered by all of the Plaintiffs' Vancouver Taxi Services,
and it distinguishes those services from any commercial passenger transportation services
sought to be provided outside of the lawful regulatory environment.

98.

Over the course of years abiding by the shared regulatory code for the provision of
Vancouver Taxi Services, the Plaintiffs have established shared or collective goodwill in
the Plaintiffs' Vancouver Taxi Services product.

99.

By explicitly or implicitly setting itself out as a "taxi" or commercial vehicle transportation

service in Vancouver, the Defendants are expressly or implicitly holding themselves out as
a provider of Vancouver Taxi Services, who are lawfully entitled to operate commercial
transportation vehicles in the City and Province.

100.

By reason of these activities, the Defendants are passing and continue to pass themselves
off as providers of Vancouver Taxi Services, which are provided by and associated with
the Plaintiff group of companies.

101.

This results in deception of and harm to the community, both directly as a result of the
inferior quality of the wholly unregulated services provided by the Defendants, as well as
indirectly as a result of the unfair competition and unfair trading resulting from the
Defendants holding themselves out as providing Vancouver Taxi Services.

12
102.

The Public is likely to be misled into believing that Defendants are operating according to
the Provincial and City licensing scheme, and the various requirements which are designed
to protect the consuming public. The Public is likely to be misled into believing that the
Defendants are providing Vancouver Taxi Services.

103.

In so doing, the Defendants are deliberately or implicitly misrepresenting themselves as

providing the "Vancouver Taxi Services" product, trading on the collective goodwill of the
Plaintiffs, depriving the Plaintiffs of customers and fares, and otherwise causing harm and
damage to the Plaintiffs, as particularized in this Notice.

104.

The Plaintiffs plead and rely upon the provisions of s. 7 of the Trade-Marks Act, as well as
the common-law of British Columbia in relation to the tort of passing off.

The Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Damages Under s. 36 of the Competition Act

105.

As described above, and in the alternative to the claims relying on the breach of the
Passenger Transportation Act and Regulations and the City By-Laws, the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful price fixing contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act.

106.

The Defendant Uber has conspired with the Defendant Drivers to fix, maintain, and control
the price for the supply of the service being provided - that is, commercial passenger
transportation services in the City.

107.

The Defendant Drivers are competitors with each other and are conspiring to provide
commercial transportation services at rates other than those set by the Board, and imposed
upon on all lawfully operating commercial passenger transportation providers in the
Province.

108.

This unlawful, anti-competitive act constitutes a breach of section 45 of the Competition

Act.

109.

This unlawful act has or will cause inevitable and foreseeable damage to the Plaintiffs, in
the form of reduced market share, profits and goodwill.

110.

The Plaintiffs plead and rely upon section 36 of the Competition Act.

The Plaintiffs have suffered or will suffer damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful
acts
111.

The Defendants' unlawful conspiracy and other unlawful acts caused or will inevitably
cause the Plaintiffs to lose market share in B.C. and in the City. The Plaintiffs would not
suffer loss and damage and, in particular, the Plaintiffs would continue to lawfully enjoy a
larger share of the commercial passenger transportation services market, but for the
Defendants unlawful acts.

13

112.

The Plaintiffs are required by law to abide by the Provincial and Municipal licensing
schemes and regulations. The ability of non-law abiding commercial vehicles services to
provide those services will cause the Plaintiffs inevitable, foreseeable and significant
damage in the form of lost sales, market share, goodwill, fares and customers.

113.

Further, the Defendants' unlawful acts have prevented or will prevent the Plaintiffs from
lawfully contracting with customers for the provision of the Plaintiffs' services. The
Plaintiffs have or will suffer loss and damage as a result of this lost opportunity.

114.

Further, as a result of the Defendants passing themselves off as licensed commercial

vehicle transportation services, the Plaintiffs will suffer a loss of shared goodwill
associated with their services, causing the Plaintiffs damage.

115.

Further, the Plaintiffs have been deprived of access to fares and customers as a direct and
foreseeable result of the Defendants unlawful conduct, in the absence of any justification
for that enrichment and corresponding deprivation.

116.

Further, and in the alternative, the Plaintiffs claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act that
the Defendants' conduct contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act entitles it to recover
an amount equal to the Plaintiffs' loss or damage suffered by the Plaintiffs and up to the
full cost of Plaintiffs' investigations and proceedings under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

Part 2:

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Plaintiff claims:

1.

General damages.

2.

A declaration that the Defendants are operating or intend to operate contrary to the law as
set out in the Passenger Transportation Act, the City By-laws, and/or the Competition Act.

3.

A declaration that the Defendants have passed off or intend to pass off, both at common
law and as prohibited by s. 7(b) of the Trade-Marks Act, its services as and for those of the
Plaintiffs.

4.

Restitutionary awards, including an accounting of profits and/or a disgorgement of

revenues gained as a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts;

5.

An interim, interlocutory and / or permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and each
of them, by themselves, or by their servants or agents or otherwise from continuing to
commit the unlawful actions set out herein or acts similar in kind to those acts.

6.

Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79.

14

7.

Special costs, or in the alternative, costs.

8.

Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Court may order.

Part 3:

LEGAL BASIS

1.

The Defendants have committed or will imminently commit the tort of civil conspiracy,
through a violation of the Passenger Transportation Act and Regulations; the City By
laws, and/or the Competition Act, as particularized above. The Defendants have entered
into an agreement to commit an unlawful act, that is intended to harm the Plaintiffs or is
directed at the Plaintiffs, and which the Defendants know or ought to know will cause the
Plaintiffs harm, and which have or will in fact cause the Plaintiffs harm.

2.

The Defendants have been unjustly enriched by their unlawful conduct, the revenues and
profits of which should be disgorged, as particularized above. The Defendants are
benefitting from their unlawful conduct, corresponding to the deprivation of the lawabiding Plaintiffs. As the conduct in question is unlawful, the Defendants can have no
juristic reason for their enrichment. As such, restitutionary awards requiring the wrongdoer
to disgorge unlawfully obtained revenues and profits are an appropriate remedy.

3.

The Defendants are liable in restitution under the doctrine of waiver of tort, as
particularized above. The Defendants' unlawful conduct constitutes a wrongful and
unlawful act, according to which act the Defendants are benefitting, justifying the creation
an accounting of revenues and/or a disgorgement of profits in favour of the Plaintiffs. The
Passenger Transportation Act, associated Regulations and the City By-laws do not provide
a comprehensive, complete code, designed to remedy unlawful conduct which deliberately
and inevitably harms those abiding by the law.

4.

The Defendants have committed the tort of passing off, both at common law and under the
Trademarks Act, as particularized above. By holding themselves out as a provider of
Vancouver Taxi Services, without abiding by the legal regulations, characteristics, and
quality of services which characterize that product, they are committing a
misrepresentation that will likely lead to confusion in the mind of a reasonable customer,
and that will deprive the Plaintiffs of business, profit, revenue, market share and goodwill
as a result.

5.

The Defendants have conspired contrary to s. 45 of the Competition Act, and are liable in
an amount equal to the loss or damage suffered by the Plaintiffs, together with any
additional amount that the court may allow up to the full cost to the Plaintiffs of any
investigation in connection with the matter and of proceedings under s. 36 of the
Competition Act.

15
Plaintiffs' address for service:
c/o Gall Legge Grant & Munroe LLP
ATTN: Peter A. Gall Q.C.
1000 - 1199 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC, V6E 3T5
Telephone: 604 891 1150
Fax:
604 669 5101
pgall@glgmlaw.com
Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia
The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 2E1
DATED November 04, 2014

of Bawyer for Plaintiff

16

Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:

(1)
Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action
must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a)

prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists

(i)
all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that
could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and
(ii)
all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and

(b)

serve the list on all parties of record.

APPENDIX

[The following information is providedfor data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]
Part 1:

CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:

The Plaintiffs' claim is against the Defendants for damages resulting from the Defendants' torts of civil
conspiracy, conspiracy in violation of s. 45 of the Competition Act, and from the tort of passing off; for
damages under the Competition Act; and for restitutionary remedies flowing from the Defendants' unjust
enrichment, and the doctrine of waiver of tort.
Part 2:

THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:

[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]

A personal injury arising out of:

[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ ] medical malpractice
[ ] another cause
A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ ] real property (real estate)
[ ] personal property
[ ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[X] a matter not listed here
Part 3:

THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:

[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ ] a class action
[ ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[ ] constitutional law

17
[ ] conflict of laws
[X] none of the above
[ ] do not know
Part 4:
[If an enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]
The Passenger Transportation Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 39
The Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34
The Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79