Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Uber challenged a Vancouver bylaw requiring ride-share companies to pay permit fees for stopping in the downtown core.

• The court examined whether the bylaw unlawfully regulated TNS vehicle numbers and customer pricing—areas reserved for provincial authority.

• Vancouver argued it acted within its traffic and permitting powers under the Vancouver Charter.

• Uber claimed the permit fee acted as an unauthorized toll and a disguised pricing mechanism.

• The court applied the Vavilov reasonableness standard to assess whether the City’s bylaw was justified.

• It was found that the City’s bylaw encroached on the provincial Passenger Transportation Board’s exclusive jurisdiction.

Facts and outcome of the case

Uber Canada Inc. brought a judicial review petition challenging section 21.8 of a Vancouver bylaw that required ride-share companies—referred to in law as Transportation Network Services (TNS)—to pay a fee each time one of their vehicles stopped to pick up or drop off passengers in the Metro Vancouver core during peak hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). The fee was $0.25 per stop for zero-emission vehicles and $0.50 for others. The bylaw also prohibited TNS vehicles from stopping in that area without a “congestion and curbside management permit.”

Uber argued that the bylaw was outside the City’s jurisdiction (ultra vires) and amounted to an unreasonable exercise of its authority. Specifically, Uber claimed the bylaw unlawfully regulated (1) the number of TNS vehicles that could operate, (2) the rates charged to customers, and (3) effectively imposed a toll, all of which the Vancouver Charter and the Passenger Transportation Act reserve for provincial jurisdiction and the Passenger Transportation Board. Uber emphasized that the Province had intentionally centralized authority over TNS licensing, operations, and pricing in 2019 through statutory amendments.

The City contended it was simply regulating traffic and parking—areas squarely within its municipal powers. It claimed the bylaw was about when and where vehicles could stop, not about fleet size or pricing. The City also argued that the fee was a permit, not a toll, and did not set customer rates.

The court disagreed with the City’s position. It found that while municipalities can regulate traffic and impose permit fees, they cannot do so in ways that effectively control the number of TNS vehicles or impose additional consumer charges. The bylaw was found to restrict the operation of TNS vehicles in the busiest part of the city during peak hours unless a fee was paid. This, in effect, regulated both fleet operations and customer pricing—areas the legislature had removed from municipal authority and placed under exclusive provincial control.

The court held that the bylaw was not a reasonable exercise of the City's powers. It concluded that the City had enacted a regulation that was inconsistent with the text, context, and purpose of the governing statutes, particularly the Vancouver Charter and Passenger Transportation Act. Although the permit fee was not considered a toll, the court ruled that the bylaw unlawfully regulated matters beyond the City’s jurisdiction.

The court therefore declared the bylaw invalid and granted the relief sought by Uber Canada Inc. No damages were awarded, and while no specific costs were granted at the time of judgment, the court gave the parties leave to return if costs were contested.