Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court that will decide the case of taxi permit holders who believe they have been wronged in their rights when their permits lost a large part of their real market value, when the Quebec government deregulated paid passenger transportation in 2019 in order to open the door to carriers like Uber.
Quebec had partially compensated taxi permit owners at the time, but the compensation did not reach the real market value of the taxi permits, which represented a long-term investment for the holders.
In June 2024, Superior Court Justice Silvana Conte, who had heard the class action lawsuit brought by the licensees, ordered the government to pay them collectively a sum of nearly $144 million.
On March 25, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision, siding with the Quebec government, and it is this decision that permit holders are asking the Supreme Court to overturn.
The thousands of former permit holders, represented by Dama Metellus, filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on Monday.
Purchased in good faith
In a statement released Tuesday, their lawyer, Bruce Johnston, argued that “the permit holders made their investment decisions within a regulatory framework strictly controlled by the government. They did so in good faith, based on rules established by the state itself, and on their belief that the Quebec rule of law was real and trustworthy. Their sense of injustice today cannot be denied.”
He argues that the compensation paid by the Quebec government only covered the unindexed acquisition cost of the permit instead of the market value, “a bit like expropriating your house at the price you paid in 1975, without taking into account the market or even inflation,” it is illustrated.
Disguised expropriation
The dispute hinges primarily on the concept of disguised expropriation, which was upheld at first instance but overturned on appeal. The law firm argues that, beyond taxi permits, the decision also raises questions about the legal protection of other types of assets, such as agricultural quotas, patents, and mining rights.
In its application for authorization, the group represented by Dama Metellus argues that the Court of Appeal’s decision “overturns the architecture of property law and the established principles of disguised expropriation, and creates significant jurisprudential, doctrinal, and economic uncertainties.” It adds that this decision “creates the possibility that certain categories of property could be entirely excluded from the fundamental protections recognized by article 952 (of the Civil Code of Québec).”
–This report by La Presse Canadienne was translated by CityNews
