licence application decision (taxi - new) · licence application decision (taxi - new) application...

Licence Application Decision (Taxi - New)

Application # 216-15 Applicant THUNDAL, Baljit & BAINS, Gurkanwal

Trade Name (s) Yellow Cabs; Prairie Cabs

Principals Baljit THUNDAL Gurkanwal BAINS

Address 9126 - 107 Ave, Grande Prairie AB, T8X 1H8

Applicant’s Representative

Navdeep THUNDAL

Application Summary

Special Authorization: Passenger Directed Vehicles New taxi service in the Fort St. John area with 21 vehicles. 20 vehicles will be conventional taxis. All others are accessible taxis. Rates Metered rates

Date Published in Weekly Bulletin

August 19, 2015

Hearing Dates & Location

March 21-23, 2016 Pomeroy Hotel, 11308 Alaska Road, Fort St. John, BC

Submitters (and representatives)

• Teco Taxi Ltd. & Fort St. John Cabs Ltd. (Michael McCubbin, Whitecap Legal, Counsel as of February 11, 2016 )

• Bernard THOMPSON (Mohan Kang, Representative) • BC Taxi Association (Mohan Kang, Representative)

Board Decision

The special authorization is refused.

Decision Date August 3, 2016

Chair Don Zurowski Panel Member Spencer Mikituk

Taxi Application Decision 2 Passenger Transportation Board

CONTENTS

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

II. Applicant’s Proposed Operation ......................................................................................... 3

III. Relevant Legislation ................................................................................................................ 4

IV. Background ................................................................................................................................ 5

V. Hearing Evidence ..................................................................................................................... 7

A. Guests of the Board ........................................................................................................................... 8 B. Applicant’s Evidence ...................................................................................................................... 11

1. Partners’ & General Manager’s Testimony ....................................................................... 11

2. Community Witnesses .............................................................................................................. 16

3. Documentary evidence ............................................................................................................ 17

4. In Camera Session (Applicant) .............................................................................................. 22

C. Submitters’ Evidence ..................................................................................................................... 22

1. Submitters’ Documentary Evidence ................................................................................... 22

2. Submitters’ Witnesses .............................................................................................................. 25

3. In Camera Session (Teco & FSJ Cabs) ................................................................................. 33

D. Applicant’s Replies ......................................................................................................................... 33 VI. Reasons for the Board’s Decision ..................................................................................... 36

A. ‘Public Need’ ...................................................................................................................................... 36 B. ‘Fit, Proper & Capable’ ................................................................................................................... 48 C. ‘Sound Economic Conditions’ ..................................................................................................... 51 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 53

Appendix A: Procedural Matters .............................................................................................. 54

A. Pre-Hearing Rulings ....................................................................................................................... 54 B. Rulings at the Hearing ................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix B: Taxi Rates ................................................................................................................ 61


I. Introduction

The applicant seeks approval to obtain a Passenger Transportation Licence with Special Authorization to operate a new taxi service in Fort St. John. For the purposes of this application, we find that Fort St. John encompasses the City of Fort St. John and immediate area which includes Charlie Lake, the North Peace Airport, Taylor, and Site C as far south as the Peace River. (The definition of Fort St. John is discussed in Appendix A, Item B2.) The applicant is a partnership of Baljit Thundal and Gurkanwal Bains. The applicant referred to the trade name of Yellow Cabs for its proposed Fort St. John operations. We will refer to the applicant as the “applicant” or by the trade name of “Yellow Cabs”. The Board published the application in its Weekly Bulletin on August 19, 2015. We held a taxi application hearing in Fort St. John from March 21 to 23, 2016. The four taxi operators listed in Table 1 have a licence to operate taxis in Fort St. John. Table 1: Taxi Licensees in Fort St. John

Licensee Maximum Fleet Size Teco Taxi Ltd. (Teco) 8 taxis

Fort St. John Cabs Ltd. (FSJ Cabs) 11 taxis Bernard Thompson 1 taxi

Peter Aylward (Energetic Taxi Cab) 1 taxi With the exception of Peter Aylward, these licensees participated at the hearing as submitters. Peter Aylward did not participate in any proceedings related to this application. The BC Taxi Association (BCTA) participated at the hearing as one of four hearing submitters.

II. Applicant’s Proposed Operation

The applicant proposes to start up a fleet of 21 taxis (including 1 wheelchair accessible taxi) in Fort St. John. It states that it made its application in response to information and observations it has regarding local dissatisfaction and issues with the availability and quality of taxi service in the city.


One of the applicant’s partners, Baljit Thundal, owns and manages four taxi companies in the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta. These are: Prairie Cabs, Yellow Cabs, Blacktop Taxi and Swan Taxi. The companies operate “55+” taxis. Grande Prairie has a population approaching 60,000 people, roughly 3 times the number in Fort St. John. Their proposal to operate 21 taxis is based on a taxis-per-capita comparison between Grande Prairie and Fort St. John, as well as with Dawson Creek and other cities. The applicant says it will bring the business model it uses in Grande Prairie to Fort St. John. This involves leasing most of its vehicles to drivers and single-shifting them. That means vehicles will only be on the road for one shift per day as opposed to 24 hours per day when vehicles are “double shifted”. Single shifting is an incentive for drivers to keep vehicles well-maintained and clean. All vehicles in the fleet will be painted with the same colours. The applicant says this business model and approach (which differs from Teco & FSJ Cabs’) will, along with the introduction of competition, address problems of taxi availability and service quality in Fort St. John. Yellow Cabs will grow the taxi market in the city. The applicant will operate two 12-hour shifts with shift changes at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (This would mean that not all taxis would be on the road at the same time.) It plans to start its Fort St. John operation with 15 taxis in 2016, 17 taxis in 2017, and 20 taxis in 2018. In combination with an aggressive marketing campaign, it expects to achieve a market share of at least 65% in the first year. It plans to implement yearly increases in its fleet until 21 are in operation. The applicant applied for metered rates which are noted at Appendix B (along with the metered rates of licensees for comparison). The business plan refers to in-town metered rates as well as flat rates for out-of-town customers. However, flat rates were not specified or published.

III. Relevant Legislation

Division 3 of the Passenger Transportation Act (the “Act”) applies to this application.


The Act requires the Registrar of Passenger Transportation to forward applications for Special Authorization to the Passenger Transportation Board (Board). Section 28(1) of the Act says that the Board may approve the application, if the Board considers that:

a) there is a public need for the service the applicant proposes to provide under any special authorization,

b) the applicant is a fit and proper person to provide that service and is capable of providing that service, and

c) the application, if granted, would promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia.

We will consider each of these points in making our decision.

IV. Background

A. ORIGINAL SUBMISSIONS After publishing the Yellow Cabs application on August 19, 2015, we received written submissions from Teco & FSJ Cabs and the BCTA. Bernard Thompson, who was a submitter at the hearing, did not make a submission when the original application was published. 1. Teco & FSJ Cabs Throughout the application proceedings, Teco & FSJ Cabs made joint submissions. They were represented by Mark A. McDonald (McDonald & Company) as legal counsel until January 27, 2016. As of February 11, 2016, Teco & FSJ Cabs have been represented by Michael McCubbin (Whitecap Legal) as legal counsel. 2. BCTA The British Columbia Taxi Association is represented by Mohan Kang, its president. The BCTA noted that Teco, FSJ Cabs and Bernard Thompson, an independent licensee, are members of the Association.


3. Summary of Original Submissions Submitters urged the Board to refuse the application. In their view, public need does not exist for more taxis. Flooding the market with more taxis would negatively affect existing taxi services and not promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation industry. In addition, Teco & FSJ Cabs provided details about investments and changes made to improve local taxi services since September 1, 2012, when the companies came under new ownership. Submitters also raised questions on whether the applicant is fit and proper, as well as capable of operating a taxi service in Fort St. John. 4. Replies to Original Submissions The applicant, in its reply, noted its experience in operating a number of taxi companies in the competitive market in Grande Prairie, Alberta where 300 taxis serve a population of 50,000 people. It said that Fort St. John taxi operations are monopolistic and unable to adequately serve local passengers, and that this leads to poor passenger service. In support of this view, the applicant included a January 18, 2011 article in the Alaska Highway News (“Taxi troubles”), as well as social media comments posted in 2011. The applicant also supplied information of local economic strength. Baljit Thundal, writing for the applicant, asserted that she and her business partner Gurkanwal Bains are experienced business people capable of sharing management responsibilities of the Fort St. John taxi operation. 5. Supplemental Submission Materials After the submission deadline, Teco & FSJ Cabs sent supplemental material to the Board. On September 14, 2015, it forwarded an email from WestJet dated September 8, 2015, notifying them that WestJet Encore will no longer require the taxi companies’ contract services as crews will not be staying overnight in Fort St. John after October 23, 2015. On November 13, 2015, they sent a media article “Teco Taxi brings wheelchair accessible cab to town” that was published that day at energetic.ca.


Further to the Board’s late submission policy, we accepted the first supplemental item and forwarded it to the applicant. The second item was not accepted. We note that Teco & FSJ Cabs included both supplemental items in its evidence binder (Hearing exhibit 15, Tabs 4 and 12 respectively). B. APPLICATION HEARING & PARTICIPANTS After reviewing materials in the application file, the Board Chair, Don Zurowski, decided to convene an oral hearing into the application. He appointed himself and Board Member Spencer Mikituk to the hearing panel. The Board published the original Notice of Hearing on November 25, 2015. As noted in the Introduction, four submitters registered to participate at the hearing. C. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A number of procedural matters arose before and during the hearing. We noted them and the rulings we made in Appendix A.

V. Hearing Evidence

The oral hearing commenced at 9:00 a.m. on March 21, 2016 and adjourned at 3:06 p.m. on March 23, 2016. A total of 27 exhibits were submitted during the oral hearing. This number includes 11 Board documents (notices and rulings), 5 documents the Board received from a ‘Guest of the Board’ (City of Fort St. John), and 1 document with financial records received from submitters Teco & FSJ Cabs. We considered evidence from the applicant’s business plan, which was in the Teco & FSJ Cabs’ exhibits. Submitters received the business plan pursuant to a Board disclosure order. A total of 20 witnesses appeared at the hearing. This includes 2 Guests of the Board. This section provides an overview of the evidence and submissions we received from Guests of the Board, the applicant and submitters.


A. GUESTS OF THE BOARD Further to Rule 20 of the Board’s Rules of Practice & Procedure1, the Board invited community representatives to appear at the hearing as Guests of the Board. We invited representatives of the City of Fort St. John and Tourism Fort St. John. Prior to the hearing, we sent questions to individual representatives appearing for each organization. Questions related to economic matters, general transportation and taxi transportation in Fort St. John. We also invited Guests to provide additional comments. After Guests responded to the questions, the Board allowed submitters and the applicant to pose follow up questions. 1. Local Government Moira Green is the Director of Strategic Services for the City of Fort St. John. Her responsibilities include economic development, strategic development, marketing, communications and public relations. She described the North Peace economy as “highly diversified” with a focus on resources: natural gas, hydroelectric power, forestry, agriculture, wind farms and metallurgical coal. She said that Fort St. John is one of only 4 Canadian cities north of the 56th parallel. She added that British Columbia’s Major Projects Inventory of September 2015 lists 55 major projects in the province’s northeast with a capital value of $37 billion. She referenced Mayor Ackerman’s December 16, 2015 letter to the Board. It pointed out that the city's population grew by about 19% from 2011 to 2015. For 2015, the population is 22,560 and projected to increase another 8% from 2016 to 2021. The letter cites population numbers that are, Moira Green explained, predicated on the approval of 2 Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) projects with an annual export volume of 40 million metric tons of liquefied gas. The City views the approval of at least two out of more than 18 proposed projects as the most likely scenario and a reasonable basis for its projections. Mayor Ackerman’s letter concludes:

The City of Fort St. John is part of a robust and growing economy that positively contributes to the wellbeing of the province as a whole.

1 The Rules of Practice & Procedure applicable at the time of this application and hearing were those effective April 17, 2013. Unless otherwise noted, this decision will reference those Rules, not the revised Rules of Practice & Procedure effective March 31, 2016.


Professional, affordable and reliable transportation services are integral to our ability to continue to be the economic driver for our region and the province.

More than anything, the local economy is affected by changes in commodity prices and the ability to access global resources markets. “Getting our lumber, or our grain or our natural gas to market and securing a good return on the sale is clearly impactful to the community,” Moira Green stated. She also described “project approvals” as one of the biggest challenges facing the community in 2016. She added that our province’s and country’s trading partner, the United States, is well on its way to self-sufficiency; export volumes to the US will decrease dramatically in the next 20 years, and it is essential to access new markets. She said the biggest challenges facing the northeast communities are commodity pricing and the project approval process. Moira Green identified the following existing alternatives to private vehicles and taxis:

• BC Transit from 6:00 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. (holidays excluded and only within city limits which are very constrained)

• Airport shuttles that hotels operate for their patrons and hospitality shuttles that licensed establishments operate to get their patrons home

• One trip daily by BC Transit (Monday to Friday only) between Fort St. John and Taylor

• Wheelchair accessible services are provided with accessible BC Transit buses and also by HandyDART (until 5 p.m. Monday to Friday and until 3:45 p.m. Saturday, no service on Sundays or holidays)

She emphasized that there is no public transportation outside the constrained city limits, which means private vehicles are the only option for people working at the North Peace Airport, the Oil and Gas Commission, Canfor, the Louisiana Pacific OSB mill or many other businesses beyond these limits. The city provides regulation and inspection of taxis under its Vehicles for Hire Regulation Bylaw. This includes Chauffeur’s Permits for drivers, business licensing for taxi companies, business premises inspections and vehicle inspections for compliance with the bylaw. Checks for Chauffeur’s Permit applicants by the Fort St. John RCMP detachment averages two to three weeks but it can take longer. For example, a negative check can take three to four weeks.


She said that a lot of comments about taxi services have been received through social media and through the Mayor’s office. She did not elaborate. However, she referred to the City’s “What Moves You” survey conducted in summer 2015. She said residents use taxis to meet less than 8% of their transportation needs. “Poor taxi service” ranked as the 8th highest transportation challenge (out of 14). This is behind road maintenance and other priorities. We asked whether there has been any change in taxi complaints since 2013 and she said she did not know. Submitters Teco & FSJ Cabs asked if she was aware that she can book a taxi in Fort St. John with the app used by Teco & FSJ Cabs. She said she was not. Moira Green made the following comments in her oral testimony and written evidence:

The communities of the Northeast are charged with ensuring the economic well-being of the natural gas sector for the province. We require the tools to build communities that we support business commerce and industry. Those tools will allow us to build communities where people choose to live, choose the raise their families and make their permanent homes. Competition improves the performance of all participants. It is healthy and should be encouraged. Healthy businesses engage communities through marketing, membership and participation. When a gap is left in service other offerings flow in to fill the space. Hence, the development of patron shuttle programs in our community. The City of Fort St. John is committed to meeting the needs of our citizens and stakeholders.

Moira Green left copies of five documents for hearing participants. They include two reports on the economy in Fort St. John and Northeast BC, the city’s transportation master plan, the city’s Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw 1792 (2005), and written responses to the questions we asked. We entered these documents as exhibits. 2. Tourism Fort St. John Adam Reaburn, Director of Tourism Fort St. John, represented Tourism Fort St. John. He is the owner and General Manager of Moose FM (CKFU-FM radio) in Fort St. John. He has been involved with Tourism Fort St. John for the past 3 years.


Adam Reaburn noted that Tourism Fort St. John is a committee of the City of Fort St. John. He stated that Tourism Fort St. John supports the entry of a new taxi operator; however, no position is taken on any specific operator. He said that ‘tourists’ in Fort St. John are primarily business and family travelers, and that the tourism sector in the area generates about $70 million annually. He said that almost all bars and hotels use shuttle service. This, he said, is due in part to limitations with the taxi service. B. APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE 1. Partners’ & General Manager’s Testimony The two partners, Baljit Thundal and Gurkanwal Bains, and the designated General Manager of the Fort St. John operation, Navdeep Thundal, testified about the applicant’s service plans and evidence in support of the application. Other evidence included three witnesses from the Fort St. John community, a business plan, financial information, data on taxi-to-population ratios, online information about competition and monopolies, 13 support letters, and a variety of online comments and information in the form of social media posts, survey results, petitions, and media articles. Baljit Thundal has owned and operated taxi companies (including Yellow Cabs and Prairie Cabs) in Grande Prairie, Alberta, since 2011. She and her family have been operating taxis since 1991. Gurkanwal Bains has co-owned and operated a Pizza 73 franchise in Fort St. John for two years. He has 15 years of experience driving taxi. This includes owner-operator experience and working for Baljit Thundal’s Yellow Cabs / Prairie Cabs operation in Grande Prairie where he has lived since 2004. Gurkanwal Bains stated that he will be assistant manager of the Fort St. John taxi operation. Navdeep Thundal appeared for the applicant and testified as General Manager for the Fort St. John taxi operation. She now assists with the management of her family’s taxi business in Grande Prairie and said she is about to receive a business degree.


Testimony of the three ‘management witnesses’ overlapped in communicating the following:

• Baljit Thundal’s Yellow Cab and Prairie Cab operations in Grande Prairie, Alberta, have a local taxi market share of between 65% and 80%.

• The Grande Prairie operation uses a taxi-lease business model where drivers pay a flat lease plus defined expenses; the applicant proposes to bring a variation of the model to Fort St. John.

• In response to submitter statements that the Fort St. John Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw requires that drivers be employees, applicant witnesses dismissed the issue as irrelevant to the application before the Board.

• The local economy and unemployment rate is not viewed as problematic –the start of Site C construction and anticipated LNG projects suggest that conditions in early 2016 are a calm before the storm and that another taxi company will be good for the community.

The two partners who are funding the operation were unequivocal about their willingness to invest the money that is needed to make the business work. The bulk of the applicant’s materials were prepared by Navdeep Thundal, particularly after we decided to hold a public application hearing. During testimony, the partners affirmed that they were involved and that they intend to implement the business plan. Individual testimonies are summarized below. a) Baljit Thundal, Partner Baljit Thundal stated that lack of competition and the numbers of taxis per capita are indications of public need. She also said that additional competition will result in lower taxi costs to taxi patrons. She testified that her company previously tried a digital dispatch system in Grande Prairie which did not work well at the time, and that they now dispatch taxis manually. She said that they will consider a digital system when the right system is available at the right price. Baljit Thundal acknowledged that her taxi business in Grande Prairie was down 20 to 25% since the economic downturn.


She said that an agency in Grande Prairie provides accessible transportation service and that there is no market there for a wheelchair accessible taxi. Her company does not operate accessible taxis. During cross-questioning, submitters asked her about the social media documents the applicant included in the application. She confirmed that it is an indicator of public need. “Evidence is evidence,” she said, “It is what it is.” We commented that the planned $110,000 expenditure for 21 vehicles is difficult to believe. She agreed that this line item does not seem practical, although it remained unclear how the applicant would obtain a fleet of reliable vehicles in good condition. She further stated that $110,000 is just a number and, if necessary, they will invest more in vehicles. b) Gurkanwal Bains, Partner Gurkanwal Bains said the idea to start a taxi company came from his observations of problems with taxi services in Fort St. John. His personal observations prompted a discussion with Baljit Thundal and agreement to form a partnership. Gurkanwal Bains confirmed information in the business plan and submitted documents that Grande Prairie has 230 to 300 registered taxis, although they may not all be operating. He testified that people trust Prairie Cabs and Yellow Cabs in Grande Prairie. Prairie Cabs operates about 15 taxis on both the day & night shift and Yellow Cabs operates 12 to 15 taxis on the day shift and 19 on night shifts. Gurkanwal Bains submitted that the number of taxis in Fort St. John is low for the population and that shuttle buses are used because there are too few taxis. If the Board approves their application, he says every customer will be served within 10 minutes. He stated that monopolies do not serve the community well. During questioning about the specifics of the application, his responses differed from information in the business plan. The business plan refers to a vehicle lease of $450 per week and his testimony left the impression that the fee would be $285 per week. During cross-questioning, he did not specify what the fees include. He commented that fuel and some insurance and maintenance may be extra.


Application materials show that the applicant intends to purchase newer vehicles, including a Toyota Prius. The business plan allocates an initial $110,000 investment to fund the opening of Yellow Cabs in Fort St. John, a figure that covers “the purchase of taxi vehicles, marketing, software, and hardware.” In response to questions about the vehicles the applicant will purchase, it became clear that many taxis would be older and that not all vehicles will be company-owned. The business plan states that the partners will establish a corporation. During cross-questioning, he was asked whether they intended to operate as a partnership or limited company. He did not seem to understand the question and did not provide a clear indication of how the partners would structure the business. Submitters asked specific questions about the applicant’s obligations under the Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw in Fort St. John, and under other applicable laws. His responses indicated that the applicant has not budgeted to ensure that drivers earn a minimum of $12 per hour. When confronted with inconsistencies between the business plan and his testimony, Gurkanwal Bains said the business plan uses estimates and generalities that are subject to change. He said they will make adjustments necessary to make the business work. He said he is not concerned about the first year of revenue, or even the first 3 years because they have lots of money. When asked about BC regulations for taxis, he said they will do what is needed when they are approved. Submitters asked him about driver recruitment plans in a strong labour market. He expressed his philosophy that drivers are happy when they have money in their pockets. And when drivers are happy, customers are happy. In general terms, he said that their revenue sharing and fee structure based on vehicle leases appeals more to drivers. During cross-questioning, he said he is unfamiliar with taxi wait times in Fort St. John these days. c) Navdeep Thundal, General Manager Navdeep Thundal talked about the social media posts, support letters and surveys that reveal dissatisfaction and problems with the current taxi operation in Fort St. John and


area. She submitted that communication by social media is common and that Facebook has policies to ensure the authenticity of people who post on the social media site. She testified that business plan projections are based on 15 vehicles. In response to questions on the minimum to be profitable, she said that 15 vehicles were allocated in the business plan. She said they are showing the Board that 21 vehicles are needed, and that projected revenues are conservative. She further explained that vehicles will be single-shifted so each driver has their own vehicle—an approach that helps motivate drivers to take care of their vehicle. She talked about the low ratio of taxis to population in Fort St. John as an indicator of need for more taxis in the community. During cross-questioning, she confirmed that the Grande Prairie operation single-shifts its vehicles, does not dispatch with a computer dispatch system, and does not operate a wheelchair accessible taxi. Navdeep Thundal said the applicant’s case relies heavily on social media, general support letters, the number of taxis per capita, the limitations of monopolies and the many benefits of competition, even when competition is destructive. She said that numbers in the business plan are based on the number of taxis per capita and also that approving the application will not take business from existing taxi drivers in Fort St. John. She testified that the indicators they are looking at show economic strength and good employment and future prospects. In cross-questioning, she was asked to clarify which costs drivers would be responsible for. She referred to a $450 monthly lease rate plus fuel, some maintenance, insurance and some other expenses carried by the driver. She also indicated that the business plan was flexible and subject to change. “It’s just a projection,” she said. She was also asked precise questions about a number of business related costs and operational requirements. They related to matters such as vehicle insurance coverage, provisions of the Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw in Fort St. John, and requirements in the Passenger Transportation Act to charge Board-approved rates. The questions called for precise answers, yet the majority of her responses were vague. She indicated that city bylaw matters are not relevant in this proceeding. When rates were discussed, Navdeep Thundal seemed to think that the applicant would be able to charge flat rates if the application were approved.


2. Community Witnesses a) North Peace Airport Mike Whalley is the Managing Director of the North Peace Airport. He testified that the airport has seen significant overall growth over the past 3 to 5 years including: 2014 up 37%; 2015 up 2%; and 2016 (so far) down 9.2%. The majority of traffic is family, friends and business travelers. Hospitality shuttles have improved ground transportation to air travelers. Taxi service has improved; however, wait times for taxis are still excessive for after-hours patrons. b) Hotel & Hospitality Industry Doug Parcells is Director of Operations for the Pomeroy Group in Fort St. John. He is responsible for 7 establishments in the region: Pomeroy Inns & Hotels, restaurants, Chances Gaming Centre, and Mackenzie Mall. Doug Parcells stated that people specify the following problems with taxis in Fort St. John: inconsistent billings (e.g. on trips from the airport), vehicles that smell of cigarette smoke and drivers’ resistance to giving change on cash payments. He said the ‘bar flush’ period is especially problematic. He also said that he made numerous efforts to negotiate taxi rates with existing taxi companies without success. In fall 2015, the Pomeroy Group opted to set up an airport shuttle that required a capital investment of $100,000 and an annual operating cost of $180,000. Further, he supports the applicant which, he said, is prepared to negotiate flat rates. When asked about the state of the region’s economy, Doug Parcells acknowledged some economic softening and testified that hotel occupancy rates remain high due to substantial bookings by BC Hydro for work on the Site C dam. He said bookings for April and May 2016 are better than the same two months last year. c) Local Taxi Driver & Dispatcher Shane Byra had, in the past 12 years, driven or dispatched for Teco & FSJ Cabs under three different owners. He has not worked for the companies in a little more than a year. He has resided in Fort St. John for approximately 30 years. He appeared as a witness for the applicant.


He stated that people are not always happy with wait times and even with current ownership, they are 1 hour behind at night. The most common complaints were: wait times; vehicle cleanliness and smoking in cars; and airport service. The Teco Taxi brand has had a long-standing bad reputation. Shane Brya remembers working Saturday night with only 3 taxis on the road and believes Fort St. John would benefit from another taxi company. 3. Documentary evidence a) Letters Eight organizations in Fort St. John provided letters that support an expansion of local taxi service generally or the applicant specifically. The applicant presented the letters as support for public need for more taxis by different sectors of the city. Letters were received from the local Chamber of Commerce, Microtel Inn & Suites, Holiday Inn Express, North Peace Regional Airport, Stonebridge Hotel, Pomeroy Lodging, Northern Grand Hotel, and Energy Services BC. The majority of the letters expressed opinions based on direct experience or on information passed along by community members and patrons regarding poor quality of service; one letter also mentioned excessive fares. The local Chamber of Commerce wrote that it organizes and pays for Safe Rides Home for guests of its Christmas parties. “We know the demand of riders exceeds the capacity of our current taxis to provide service. During peak times, wait times of 1 to 2 hours is not uncommon.” Doug Parcells, Director of Operators for Pomeroy Lodging wrote about the great difficulty he has had with the current cab companies. Guests of his company have waited too long for taxis to and from the airport and problems intensify during the winter. When guests are overcharged, the cab company is slow to respond to complaints. The applicant also included letters sent directly to the Passenger Transportation Board by the Mayor of Fort St. John and Tourism Fort St. John. These letters acknowledge the Yellow Cabs application without specifically indicating support for their application. They refer to problems with existing taxi services and community support for competition and service


improvement. The Chair of Tourism Fort St. John wrote, “This situation has not improved in the last 15 years in our community and we need to have some remedy to the situation.” In her letter, Mayor Ackerman provided information about the local economy and included recent 2 social media posts, one which states:

Do the “facts and data” being sent include the fact that current cab drivers smoke in their vehicles? The fact that current cabs are not clean? The fact that a 2-hour wait is not unusual? The fact that a ride from the airport to the East Bypass costs $30?

The applicant provided three letters from Grande Prairie: the City of Grande Prairie and two organizations that Prairie Cabs has contracts with in that city. The City wrote that any concerns it has had with the operation of Prairie Cabs have been resolved by the company in a timely manner. One letter described the service as “excellent and without complaint.” Two of Prairie Cabs’ contracts (GP & District Catholic Schools, Canada Post) attested to the professionalism of drivers. b) Taxis Per Capita The applicant compared the population and taxi plates for Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. It said the cities are close in geographic location and demographics. The applicant stated that Fort St. John has greater economic scope and development underway. It wrote that Dawson Creek has 29 taxi permits that serve a population of 11,583 and Fort St. John has 21 taxi permits that serve a population of 18,609 (2011 statistics). It said that Dawson Creek has about 7,000 residents fewer than Fort St. John. “Therefore,” it wrote, “this is also a reason why we requested 21 plates.” c) Facebook Posts The applicant provided two sets of Facebook posts. The original set responded to a 2011 Facebook invitation by PJXM News to share taxi experiences in response to a media statement by the then-president of Teco & FSJ Cabs that only 7 to10 out of 23 taxis were needed on the road at any one time. The invitation prompted more than 110 posts. Most posts provided stories or views that were critical of the city’s two taxi companies. As to the second set, on November 24, 2015, the applicant created a “Yellow Cabs – Fort St. John, BC” page on Facebook. The initial post states: “Let’s hear it from Fort St. John


residents and visitors about what they feel in regards to the current taxi service in town, and whether a new one is needed.” The page received 1494 “likes”. On February 3, 2016, the applicant printed 4 pages of posts and included them as evidence. The 4 pages included brief Facebook posts followed by responses and re-posts from the applicant. The posts related to a desire for smoke-free cars, rates regulation in Ontario, the need for competition, the importance of city representation at the hearing, and the poor condition of Teco Taxi vehicles. The applicant gave the Board a link to the Facebook page and requested that the Board “analyze the data and evidence from these sources carefully.” The applicant did not supply its own analysis of the data. The applicant also indicated that a Board review of the social media posts “will be the most efficient and safe way to validate any ‘fake accounts’/ ‘misleading’ facts.” After November 24, 2015, the applicant periodically added posts to promote its Facebook page and online survey (discussed below); it included a 2-page list of its posts in evidence. The content of the applicant’s posts pertains to their proposed meter rates, details relating to the upcoming hearing and its intentions to compete fairly. The applicant also identified a “fake” account that was posting to the site and banned them from further posts. d) Online Survey The applicant used SurveyMonkey, a web-based survey provider, to conduct an online survey that was made accessible through Facebook from January 10, 2016 to February 11, 2016. It received 50 responses. The survey asked 3 open-ended questions and 7 yes/no questions. Eight questions focused on whether (or what) problems exist with existing taxis or whether a new taxi company would address those problems. The following two questions are examples of an open-ended question and a yes/no question:

• Where do you feel the current taxi service(s) lack? If any. • Do you feel having another taxi service in FSJ could improve the current situation?

If any. For each of the yes/no questions, respondents chose from multiple-choice options the applicant provided. As an illustration of the multiple-choice options offered, we reproduce


below Question 2 of the survey including the options respondents could select (and the number of times respondents selected each option):

QUESTION: “Overall, are you satisfied with the existing taxi service(s)?” OPTIONS: “Yes, they are fulfilling my demands as a customer to the fullest.”(2 selections) “Somewhat, at times there needs to be changes done.” (8 selections) “No, absolutely not, I am getting taken advantage of.” (37 selections) (Skipped: 3)

Each of the 10 survey question allowed respondents to make unscripted comments. For Question 2, five respondents commented:

a) “They are rude and always late. I have waited for up to an hour and a half after being continually told they would be just another ‘15 minutes’.”

b) “Arrogant, never supply enough cabs at peak time 3 hour waits at 2 a.m. unacceptable.”

c) “Rude dispatch and long wait times.” d) “They don’t answer the phone always late drive crazy and smoke in their

vehicles.” e) “Unreliable pickups to the airport and impossible to get one most nights.”

Although each survey question elicited differences and variations in the responses provided, in the aggregate the responses show that a large majority of respondents are discontent with the existing taxi services; some have had unsatisfactory experiences with taxis, and most generally support the entry of a new taxi service. The survey asked respondents which taxi company they used and how often. Responses indicated: 33 used Teco & FSJ Cabs, 6 used Bernard Thompson, 2 used Energetic [Taxi] Cab, 4 skipped the question, 3 indicated ‘any taxi’, 2 indicated they do not use taxis. Of those who used taxis most frequently, 3 indicated that they use taxis daily and 10 indicated that they use taxis weekly. Following the testimony of Navdeep Thundal on March 21, 2016, the Panel requested information that was available about the online survey participants that would help it assess the results. The next day, the applicant produced copies of individual results for each survey respondent, the respondents’ Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and the date and time at which each respondent started and submitted the survey. These were entered as Exhibit 25.


e) Survey The applicant supplied 18 responses to a written and undated a survey called, “Do we need another taxi company in FSJ?” It asked respondents about their taxi usage, wait times and to provide contact information. It also asked, “Would a franchise service be good for FSJ in terms of town look and reputation and your personal assurance?” The applicant provided raw results. f) E-Petition The applicant supplied information obtained from 98 individuals who signed its online petition between December 16, 2015 and February 3, 2016. It used GoPetition to publish and administer the petition. Here is an excerpt from the preamble:

Why is the taxi industry still at the speed it was 25+ years ago? There have been NO changes in the taxi industry. So, we are here signing a petition, because the existing taxi company is not ready to give up their monopoly in FSJ and would want to continue serving residents with the same old service.

The text of the petition states that signatories want the Passenger Transportation Board to allow application 216-15 “in order to add healthy competition in the community so we are not taken advantage of—the City desperately needs another taxi service.” Out of 98 signatories, 94 are based in the Fort St. John, Taylor and Charlie Lake area. Of the 98 signatories, 47 left additional comments in support of more or different taxi services. Raw results were provided by the applicant. Twelve petition participants cited long wait times; frequency of use was not commented on by those participants. g) News Articles Online media articles were supplied. They are mostly from 2014 to early 2016 and generally report on major resource based and hydroelectric development projects and area population statistics. The applicant did not direct us to any piece of information in particular. It stated that the articles relate to the improvement of sound economic conditions in Fort St. John and area.


4. In Camera Session (Applicant) During an in camera session with the applicant, we discussed the availability of funds to invest in the startup phase and we requested third party verification. The applicant provided the verification we requested within the timelines we set. C. SUBMITTERS’ EVIDENCE 1. Submitters’ Documentary Evidence At the hearing, we received written documentation from submitters in two sets. One set was from Teco & FSJ Cabs and the other was from Bernard Thompson and the BCTA. a) Teco & FSJ Cabs We entered written submissions for Teco & FSJ Cabs as Exhibits 15 and 16. The documents present evidence and submissions that relate to its recent innovations and current service levels. They also describe broader conditions in the local and regional economy and possible impacts on taxi operations. We summarized a number of the submissions below.

i. Current Service & Operational Data Teco & FSJ Cabs stated that they deliver an excellent level of service. They supplied data from April 30, 2015 to January 30, 2016 that reports a taxi arrival time of 10 minutes or less for 80.3% of dispatched trips and 14 minutes or less for 90.7% of dispatched trips. On average, the taxi arrival time is 7 minutes 32 seconds. Teco & FSJ Cabs submit that response times during peak “bar rush” times are consistent with non-rush times of the week. Teco & FSJ Cabs provided week-by-week operational statistics from September 2, 2012 to February 6, 2016. These were accompanied by comparison statistics indicating the percentage change from one year to the next. The week-by-week data and percentage change comparisons included the “gross meter total”, “numbers of trips”, “driver hours”, and “total shifts worked”. They also presented averages for the week that include “revenue


per trip”, “revenue per driver hour”, “trips per driver hour”, “number of shifts per day” and “peak number of shifts per day”. ii. Taxi Demand

Teco & FSJ Cabs stated that the taxi economy in Fort St. John is likely stagnant or contracting. Their data for March 1, 2015 through to August 29, 2015 indicated that revenues were down 1.3% compared to the same period in 2014. For the same period, the number of trips increased 6.0%, the number of driver hours increased 27.5%, and average revenue per driver hour declined 22.0%. This, Teco & FSJ Cabs submitted, has a direct impact on the wages of each driver and Teco & FSJ Cabs are at risk of losing drivers if other employment opportunities arise. iii. Loss of Major Customers The economic downturn in Fort St. John has resulted in companies, such as Canada Post, Hallcon Crew Transport, Sanjel, WestJet and Clean Harbors, reducing their taxi usage. Revenue losses have been significant for Teco & FSJ Cabs. The loss impacts both the companies and drivers who earn commissions. iv. Sound Economic Conditions Teco & FSJ Cabs submit that approving Yellow Cabs will deteriorate an already difficult business environment for their drivers. Additional competition results in unfair wages for drivers; will result in the loss of drivers with other job options; and it will make new recruitment impossible. v. FSJ Bylaw for Taxi Drivers

Teco & FSJ Cabs point out that the City of Fort St. John has a Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw. Section 17(5) requires that all taxis be operated by either “the registered owner of the vehicle or by a driver employed by and directly responsible to the owner.” All Teco & FSJ Cabs’ drivers operate under an employer-employee relationship. The company pays a base commission of 40% plus statutory benefits. If a driver’s average wage drops below minimum wage, the employer pays a “top up”.


Teco & FSJ Cabs note that a top up is not the practice at Yellow Cabs in Grande Prairie and it surmises that a top up will not be provided in Fort St. John. They suggest that leasing the identifiers to drivers will not comply with the local taxi bylaw and will result in hardship to Yellow Cabs’ proposed drivers, if they can find drivers. Teco & FSJ Cabs indicate that existing taxi services are operating below a current breakeven of $25.08 per hour of operation and that adding 21 taxis would require a 164% increase in business volume. Teco & FSJ Cabs view this as impossible for the foreseeable future. vi. Regional Economy Teco & FSJ Cabs state that the City of Fort St. John is known as British Columbia’s oil-and-gas-capital. A significant portion of the local workforce is employed, directly or indirectly, in the energy industry. Teco & FSJ Cabs provided a number of media articles with information about the economy of Fort St. John and northeastern region of BC. It was reported that the declines in energy prices over the past year and a half caused local companies to downsize staffing levels and curtail new capital investment. Media articles indicated that as of late 2015 and early 2016, the unemployment rate in Fort St. John and the northeast reached its highest level in years. There is uncertainty about which projects will proceed. Further, articles report those large projects that are proceeding (e.g. Cite C) have invested in luxury work camps that minimize the need for local ground transportation services. Thus, Teco & FSJ Cabs submit, the benefits of these projects for taxi demand may be significantly muted even if they proceed. vii. WAT service Teco & FSJ Cabs provided emails it sent on November 13, 2015, announcing to city council members the launch of its first wheelchair accessible taxi (WAT). The mid-November start of the WAT service (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) is also acknowledged in media reports.

viii. Taxi Population Teco & FSJ Cabs provided a list of 29 regions in BC with 2011 population statistics (BC Stats via Wikipedia) and numbers of approved taxis (posted online by the Board in July 2015). The submitters calculated the number of taxis per 1,000 residents for each regional district in BC. The results range from 0.11 taxis per 1,000 in Fraser Fort George to 3.14 taxis per 1,000 in Skeena Queen Charlotte. The average for BC is 0.78 taxis per 1,000 people. In the


Peace River Regional District, the ratio is slightly above average at 0.95 taxis per 1,000 people. b) Bernard Thompson / BCTA Submissions Bernard Thompson and the BCTA participated as submitters at the hearing. They were each represented by Mohan Kang, President of the BCTA. Their written submissions were made jointly. Bernard Thompson and the BCTA submit that taxi service in Fort St. John is timely. This is based on information that most customers are served within 7 minutes and almost all the rest are served within 13 minutes. The local economy and city are in a recession, taxis in the city are under-utilized, and shuttle services by hotels and bars have reduced the number of people who need a taxi. Some major contracts have already been cancelled. A new taxi company will take away existing business, not generate new customers. Operating a new large taxi company in the city is not feasible and it would destructively cut the income of operators that are both struggling and investing in improvements (including a new digital dispatch system). The BCTA presented taxi-to-population ratios for 6 communities in the province. It submitted that there is no correlation between the number of taxis and population in an area. The BCTA submitted an email from the owner of Golden Cabs BC Ltd. (operating a taxi service in Dawson Creek) stating that it has a Passenger Transportation Licence to operate 12 vehicles; however, no more than 6 are operated at any one time. 2. Submitters’ Witnesses a) Teco & FSJ Cabs

i. Taxi Drivers for Teco & FSJ Cabs Three drivers for Teco & FSJ Cabs appeared as witnesses.


Andrew Gowman has worked for a long time in the area as an industrial worker, and is now driving for Teco, which he started on June 23, 2015. He said that taxi complaints are mostly limited to bar flush periods. He noted that there is a lot of traffic in Fort St. John, and the vehicles get dirty quickly. We asked him about shuttles and the frequency of trips at the airport. He said he believes that shuttles were introduced because the economy declined and people could not afford transportation. He also said he only goes to the airport when he has a person’s phone number. He does not drive to the airport “on spec” because he doesn’t get a trip every flight. Stanford Elan has been driving taxi in Canada since 1995. He drove taxis for Yellow Cab in Vancouver and Garden City Taxi in Richmond. He was one of about 40 drivers to whom Teco & FSJ Cabs provided a trip and offered incentives to relocate to Fort St. John. This included a return flight to Fort St. John, a community tour and first month’s rent as a relocation incentive to live in Fort St. John and drive taxi. At present, he sees people leaving the community and does not believe the city would support another 21 taxis. Stanford Elan also drives a school bus. Tom Desjardins is a retired Corporal with a long military career in the Yukon. He started driving taxi in July 2015 and reports that business has been slow since he started. He chose to drive the wheelchair accessible taxi and received training to operate it. He says people love this vehicle because it provides additional freedom for activities that include movies, church and shopping. He says the company’s fleet is in good repair and that demand for the wheelchair accessible taxi is growing. He says the decline in the taxi business is caused mainly by a downturn in the oil industry and the number of free shuttles that operate. The drivers’ testimony indicates the following:

• Teco & FSJ Cabs remunerate drivers by providing 40% of metered fares with a guarantee to make minimum wage—top-ups are not uncommon when the commission falls below minimum wage

• Teco & FSJ Cabs provide employee benefits to drivers: WCB, CPP, EI and holiday pay • The condition of vehicles are described as good or significantly improved • Revenues fluctuate from shift to shift and shift highs have declined by more than

50% especially in the past 9 to 15 months • Most trips are dispatched


ii. Dispatchers for Teco & FSJ Cabs

Two dispatchers for Teco Taxi & FSJ Cabs appeared as witnesses. Lindsay Nicholson dispatches for Teco & FSJ Cabs during the day (5 days a week). She started in April 2015. She has lived in Fort St. John for eight years. She believes the economy is slow and has read that the local population is declining. She reported that demand for the wheelchair accessible taxi is low (about 1 to 2 trips on day shifts). She contends that declining taxi business reflects the decline in the economy and the free shuttles operated by the hospitality industry. Navdeep Hans works as a night dispatcher (4 p.m. to 12 p.m.) for Teco & FSJ Cabs. She has done this job since August 2015 and has lived in Fort St. John for about a year. She considers her work atmosphere good and says that management is engaged and accessible. She contends that weekend evenings are the busiest time of the week and that 95% of trips are dispatched. On Saturday nights, about 10 to 15 calls are received each hour. She says that dispatchers watch the flight schedule closely and send up to 4 vehicles to the airport although not all may get trips. Navdeep Hans answered questions about customers who are blacklisted. She explained that there are a small number of taxi patrons (8 or 9) who have a history of not paying taxi fares or who are belligerent while intoxicated. Both dispatchers reported the following:

• The majority of trips are dispatched (Hans says about 95%) • Flight times are generally busy periods for both day and night shifts • Busy periods have comparable call volumes for both day and night shifts (Nicholson:

about 10 calls per hour; Hans: 10 to 15 calls per hour) although there tends to be more calls in the evening (especially from 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. on weekends).

• The dispatchers use Gata Hub, a cloud-based dispatch system to dispatch taxis (with manual override turned on)

• Dispatchers use GPS with the Gata Hub system to identify real-time vehicle locations on a map


• The dispatchers are always able to manage dispatch call volumes; they say they are never swamped (Hans reported that there used to be two dispatchers when she started a year earlier)

• Typically, almost half the fleet is operated at one time (Nicholson: about 7 to 9 taxis during the day; Hans: commonly 8 to 9 taxis at night although all cars are operated in December and at bar flush).

iii. Rampart Automotive Business Representative Shayne Klamut is the sales representative for Rampart Automotive. This is an associate company to Teco & FSJ Cabs. It provides repair service to its taxis. To expand revenue sources, Teco & FSJ Cabs are marketing their vehicle repair facility to the community. Shayne Klamut is a 20-year resident of Fort St. John and contends the economy is the worst he has seen and that it is affecting many local businesses. Specifically, he referred to Continental Pipeline, which laid off 500 people and shut down. He spoke of a significant decline at Progress Energy. He referenced the Site C dam construction as a project that will help the economy. iv. Accessibility Advocates Two accessibility advocates in the community appeared as witnesses for Teco & FSJ Cabs. Loris Slater is the Peer Program Coordinator for Spinal Cord Injury BC. She advocates for stakeholders as they return home from rehabilitation. She met Tag Gill, current Manager of Teco & FSJ Cabs, when his parents purchased the business. Tag Gill was approachable and also interested in providing WAT services. Licensing and training drivers took some time. Loris Slater stated that HandyDART only operates on weekdays until 5 p.m., and that demand for wheelchair accessible service is highest in the evenings and on weekends. She said she received no service complaints about the wheelchair accessible taxi service. Cindy Mohr is Executive Director of the Fort St. John Association for Community Living (ACL). She has worked for ACL in different capacities for the past 14 years. She praised Tag Gill for once fixing ACL’s bus that was stranded—something he did as a community service.


She said that the challenge with wheelchair accessible taxi service is the rates that taxi companies charge (higher than transit) and the need for drivers with specialized training. She added that Teco’s wheelchair accessible taxi service has improved the quality of life for its stakeholders. In response to a question about the state of the local economy, she described it as scary and the worst she has seen since the 1980s. She added that retaining staff was difficult in a strong economy and that now staff coverage is more complete. The testimony of these two witnesses overlapped in communicating the following:

• Both have worked with Tag Gill in the past few years and speak well of his interest in helping to find transportation solutions for their community organizations

• Previous owners of Teco & FSJ Cabs had no interest in providing WAT services • For people who use wheelchair accessible transportation, the price of the service

often limits their usage • Drivers need specialized training that can be difficult to access • Both responded affirmatively to questions of whether Fort St. John would benefit

from another taxi company—one commenting that options are nice and the other commenting on competition as beneficial

v. Manager Tag Gill appeared as the sole management representative for Teco & FSJ Cabs. Tag Gill’s father, Sukinder Gill, owns the two taxi companies. Tag Gill is a chemical engineer and Certified General Accountant by training. He resides in the BC Lower Mainland and commutes to Fort St. John at least monthly or more often as required. He is in daily contact with his staff and father whom is on site daily providing operational oversight. Tag Gill has worked as a comptroller and CEO in other regulated industries. His father purchased Teco & FSJ Cabs in September 2012. Tag Gill contends that at that time, the companies were in disarray with low employee morale. The companies are licensed to operate 19 taxis and had only 13 drivers to cover a 24/7 schedule at the time. In 2012, not all vehicles were functioning.


Tag Gill and his father decided against cosmetic changes such as a name change. They wanted to fix the companies’ ills, restore employee morale and win back community confidence. They attempted to hire more drivers from within the community with little success. At the time, the local labour market was very competitive and they could not match oil patch wages. They began recruiting in the Vancouver area by approaching drivers individually. Over time, they convinced about 40 Vancouver taxi drivers to consider relocating to Fort St. John. The newly owned companies flew these individuals to Fort St. John and back home. The taxi companies gave them a tour of the city, hosted them for lunch and offered to pay the first month’s rent as an incentive to relocate and drive taxis in Fort St. John. Some eventually relocated to Fort St. John. The strategy addressed the shortage of drivers, and this enabled them to address the problem of excessive wait times. Tag Gill stated that their driver recruitment efforts have resulted in an adequate supply of committed drivers. He added that they still retain 8 of the 13 drivers who were with the companies when his father bought them. Tag Gill contends that he and his father have worked continually to improve the mechanical condition of vehicles and to upgrade the fleet by acquiring newer vehicles. Tag Gill referred to a letter of February 18, 2016, from the supervisor of the Bylaw Enforcement Department in the City of Fort St. John. The letter commends all employees in the Teco & FSJ Cabs’ office and shop for their cooperation and assistance during a recent inspection. It acknowledges positive inspection results and “a big improvement from previous years in the quality of record keeping, up-to-date chauffeur permits, and driver’s licences.” The letter also states, “The most improved aspect has been the cleanliness and good working order of the taxis.” About 2.5 years ago, the companies implemented a digital dispatch system with an integrated smartphone app. They selected Gata Hub as more economical than DDS. It gave them the best value for their operation. Tag Gill demonstrated the system to the hearing panel, applicant and other submitters. He used an iPad to access a map of the city and show the current locations of Teco & FSJ Cabs’ vehicles in the city. On the iPad, he then demonstrated how a taxi is ordered with the Gata Hub app. He contends that their digital dispatch system gives dispatchers better information and has improved their service.


Tag Gill stated that since taking over, the owners decided to double-shift their vehicles and have not considered applying for more licences. He referred to dispatch data that Teco & FSJ Cabs provided. This data shows an average response time of about 7 minutes, with 88.9% of trips served in 13 minutes or less—from April 30, 2015 to January 30, 2016. During cross-questioning by the applicant, Tag Gill said that he transferred data from Gata Hub to Microsoft Excel to produce the reports he was referring to. When asked about the state of the local economy, Tag Gill responded that the economic impacts on his business were detectable in March 2015. He added that the standard summer layoffs in the resource industry started earlier that year. He further commented that the slowdown worsened from November 2015 to January 2016. Tag Gill stated that Teco & FSJ Cabs operate a wheelchair accessible van even though it is not economical. Operating the van takes more time and capital investment than a conventional taxi. To incentivize van drivers, Teco & FSJ Cabs decided to allocate 100% of the fare to the driver. In addition, he said that care is taken to select drivers who enjoy making a contribution to the community. As for Tag Gill and his family, he said that neither he nor his parents have drawn a salary or dividends from Teco or from FSJ Cabs since the September 2012 purchase date. b) Bernard Thompson Bernard Thompson testified as the sole witness on his own behalf. He has worked in the taxi industry over the past decade. He stated that he operates independently of the other taxi companies and, for economic reasons, he self-dispatches by cell phone. His family helps him with the business as needed. Most of his business is by cell phone dispatch. Flag trips are minimal. He works at the airport but may not get a fare with each flight. He may get as few as 3 trips a day and there have been days when he gets none. When times are good, he may have 10 to 20 fares. The only time he is consistently busy is on weekend evenings. Bernard Thompson worked for Teco Taxi before he obtained his licence and recently worked for the company as well. Since obtaining his licence, he has usually resisted


opportunities to work for Teco and has refused offers to buy his taxi business for a modest sum. He said that the slowing economy and introduction of shuttle buses have affected his business. Trip volumes are less than they used to be and, he states, adding even one more taxi in Fort St. John would affect his income and hurt his business. c) BCTA Witnesses

i. Association President Mohan Kang appeared as a witness. At his request, Michael McCubbin asked questions. He has been the elected president of the BCTA for 17 years and has 35 years of experience in the taxi industry. The BCTA has 136 corporate and associate members throughout BC. He said that three of four licensed taxi companies in Fort St. John are members. He spoke of cities in BC that have an oversupply of taxis. In Prince Rupert, there are 47 licensed taxis which are too many for the population of 12,000 people. Dawson Creek has 28 licensed taxis: Yellow Cabs has 16 and Golden Cabs has 12. Golden Cabs has 3 taxis on the road during weekdays and only 6 on weekends. Salmon Arm operates 7 taxis including 1 wheelchair accessible taxi to serve a population of 16,000 or 17,000, with only 2 to 3 cabs on the road. Kitimat has a population of 8,000 with 3 to 4 cabs on the road. He said, in his view, the new managers in Fort St. John are doing wonders. He said that Fort St. John is double-shifting its vehicles, and this affects comparisons of population ratios. He said that taxi companies depend on the public need for taxis that exist in the communities they serve. As well, he indicated that shifts with 20 or more trips can be viewed as an indicator of viability. ii. Dawson Creek Taxi Licensee

Abraham Koshin is principal of Golden Cabs in Dawson Creek. He refers to himself as the owner, manager and secretary of the company. He originally operated Golden Cabs in Alberta. In 2010, he successfully applied for a passenger transportation licence and started the company that now operates in Dawson Creek. At the time of his application, he said, business was booming and he needed more drivers to expand service. Since then, he switched to an owner/operator model and the economy changed. His company is licensed


to operate 12 taxis and commonly operates between 2 and 6 at present. At present, weekly trip volumes for each car are down to 100 to 180 from between 200 and 250. He contends that between his company and the other taxi company there is a total of 8 to 12 taxis on the road in Dawson Creek to serve a population of 13,000 to 15,000. He believes that the other licence holder in Dawson Creek is struggling like his company. Golden Cabs dispatches with 2-way radio and 90% of trips are dispatched. We asked about operational differences between Alberta and British Columbia. He said that insurance costs are different and vehicle inspections are the same.

3. In Camera Session (Teco & FSJ Cabs)

During the in-camera session, we asked Teco & FSJ Cabs about financial information in the confidential statements it provided, and its performance during a recent 6-week period. We heard about their claims that it continues to subsidize the operation. D. APPLICANT’S REPLIES The applicant’s exhibits include Exhibit 13, “Reply Book Application #216-15”. The content of this Exhibit, disclosed to the Board and submitters before the hearing, provides written reply submissions and evidence in response to materials disclosed earlier by Teco & FSJ Cabs and Bernard Thompson & BCTA. We are summarizing this material here as it relates to submitter materials described in the previous section.

i. Teco & FSJ Cabs Claims of Service Improvements The applicant points to Teco & FSJ Cabs’ acknowledgement that wait times before September 2012 were 30 to 60 minutes, and it notes that their use of radio dispatch as recently as 2014 means there probably were long waits before then too. The applicant adds that data has not been provided that shows such long waits. The applicant submits that Teco & FSJ Cabs’ statistics should not be accepted by the Board unless they can be authenticated. The applicant disagrees that Teco & FSJ Cabs have taken extensive steps to improve taxi transportation in Fort St. John. The applicant bases its opinion on pictures of Teco & FSJ Cabs’ taxis and interactions between it and Teco & FSJ Cabs.


ii. Teco & FSJ Cabs Driver Recruitment

The applicant points to contradictions in Teco & FSJ Cabs’s evidence that shows a loss of revenue (20%) while adding new drivers (30%) and posting new ads (August 28, 2015) to hire more drivers. The applicant suggests that these numbers may be made-up and urges the Board to view them skeptically. iii. Teco & FSJ Cabs Loss of Contracts The applicant points out that contracts lost by Teco &FSJ Cabs are minor, part of a business cycle where contracts are lost and won, and do not represent the full business picture. iv. Sound Economic Conditions The applicant dismisses Teco & FSJ Cabs’ submissions that approving the Yellow Cabs application will result in the deterioration of the business environment. The applicant submits that additional competition will benefit drivers who will be able to choose the company they work for whether it is Teco & FSJ Cabs, or Yellow Cabs. v. Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw

The applicant dismisses concerns about leases and compliance with the Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw for the City of Fort St. John. It has been dealing with bylaws in the City of Grande Prairie and is more than ready to comply fully with bylaws in Fort St. John. vi. Fort St. John Economy The applicant views the state of the economy differently than Teco & FSJ Cabs does. It sees that the city is growing, will continue to grow, and that more taxi services are needed to support that growth. It adds that another 20 taxis plus 1 WAT are sufficient enough to support the population, and provide the residents with choice and standards they currently do not have.


vii. Wheelchair Accessible Taxi Prairie Cabs does not operate wheelchair accessible taxis in Grande Prairie because the City has a separate transportation service for individuals with special needs.

viii. Yellow Cabs’ FSJ Facebook Page The applicant supplemented its prior submission of the Yellow Cabs’ FSJ Facebook page that it started on November 24, 2015. The applicant printed a copy of all posts that had accumulated as of February 12, 2016. Posts were presented in their raw form. The page registered 1,504 “likes”. The applicant also supplied receipts for payments it made to Facebook to promote its page from November 27, 2015 to February 12, 2016. ix. Residents Per Taxi The applicant supplemented information it previously provided about taxis per capita and provided a 2016 update to population statistics as reported on Wikipedia. Based on this information, the applicant submits that approval of this application would double the proportion of approved taxis to residents in Fort St. John and almost match the higher proportion in Dawson Creek. It wrote: “This is why FSJ needs another cab company and this is how we came up with 20 taxis and 1 wheelchair van to operate in FSJ.” The applicant also reiterated its submission that Dawson Creek is a demographically-relevant comparison. Dawson Creek is in the same region and only 75 kilometres away. The applicant also stated its belief that both Dawson Creek and Fort St. John share the same economic base, population trends and lifestyle trends. x. Replies to Bernard Thompson / BCTA Submissions

The applicant also responded to the submission of the BCTA and Bernard Thompson. The applicant suggests that there is a large amount of development and businesses opening in Fort St. John, and that the city is doing very well economically. If other forms of businesses can be opened then why can’t another transportation service be opened? Any business should not be running as a monopoly. Everyone has an equal right to open if there are reasonable facts and figures to support it.


Baljit Thundal currently owns the busiest taxi fleet in Grande Prairie, Alberta and Gurkanwal Bains has been operating Pizza 73 for the past 2 years in Fort St. John. The applicants are expanding their experience and capability to give passengers good reliable taxi service which will always be at their doorstep within 10 minutes guaranteed. In order to serve this growing economic development there also needs to be sufficient public transportation in the form of taxis that will accommodate the residents, workers, and tourists.

VI. Reasons for the Board’s Decision

We considered three matters as set out in section 28 of the Passenger Transportation Act. As noted in the “Relevant Legislation” section of this decision, our considerations relate to public need, whether approving the application would promote sound economic conditions in the transportation business in Fort St. John and area, and whether the applicant is fit, proper and capable of providing the proposed new service. The findings and determinations we have made are based on oral, written, and statistical evidence that was presented by the applicant, submitters as well as Guests of the Board. A. ‘PUBLIC NEED’ Is there a public need for the service that the applicant proposes to provide under special authorization? Yellow Cabs applied to double the number of licensed taxis that operate in Fort St. John from 21 to 42. It also proposes to operate 1 of the 21 vehicles as a wheelchair accessible taxi. We received competing evidence and submissions on the question of public need for more taxis. We are approaching the evidence by first considering evidence that relates to specific segments of the taxi market in Fort St. John. These include, bar closing, airport taxis and wheelchair accessible taxis. Second, we examine broad indicators of public need such as taxis per capita, public sentiment and taxi operating statistics.


1. Market Segments a) Bar Closing Evidence from a variety of sources suggests that bar closing is a period when customers wait too long and when existing companies receive the most complaints. We also heard that licensed establishments provide shuttle services for patrons so they get home safely. Teco & FSJ Cabs supplied statistics with average times for dispatched taxis to arrive at the pickup location. These are broken down as averages for each hour of the week (168 in total). Statistics are for the period April 30, 2015 to January 30, 2016. The overall average arrival time is 7 minutes 32 seconds. Table 2 identifies weekly periods with the longest average taxi arrival times. Table 2: Dispatched Taxi Arrival Time (Teco & FSJ Cabs: Apr. 30, 2015–Jan. 30, 2016)

Peak Time Periods Hourly Average Arrival Times Saturday morning (12 a.m. to 6 a.m.) 7.5 to 9 minutes Saturday afternoon (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.) 7.5 to 9.5 minutes Sunday morning (12 a.m. to 6 a.m.) 8 to 10 minutes

The Saturday morning and Sunday morning periods in Table 2 cover “bar flush” periods. Although the wait time statistics do not include street hails or flagged trips, we heard evidence that the majority of taxi business in Fort St. John is dispatch. A taxi driver told us that most complaints are related to the bar rush period and the night dispatcher talked of challenges that arise with a small number of people who are belligerent or are known to skip payment. Some of the applicant’s materials refer to the bar rush period, and one representative of a major regional hotel group refers to the bar flush period as being “especially problematic”. However, we did not receive compelling evidence that points to the existence of an acute or chronic taxi shortage during the bar rush peak period. The availability of some shuttles may be helping the situation. Given the evidence we received, we do not find that a public need exists during the bar rush peak period that justifies the addition of full-time taxis in Fort St. John.


b) Airport Ground Transportation Representatives of the airport and a major regional hotel group testified about challenges, trends and developments with ground transportation at the airport. Over the past five years airport traffic has been expanding despite some recent flattening or slight decline. The airport is located outside city limits and there are about 10 flights daily. We heard that ground transportation has improved with the introduction of a shuttle and improved taxi service. We also heard that there were some issues with wait times for taxis in the evenings and inconsistent billings for trips that cover the same route. Dispatchers testified that flight arrival times are busy periods for taxis whether it is night or day. The also stated that they send cars to the airport as flights come in. We also heard from one driver who only goes to the airport when he is pre-booked because he doesn’t get a trip every flight. Many of the witnesses attributed declines in taxi trip volumes to the recent start of the airport shuttle. We recognize that even with the addition of a shuttle, the airport continues to seek improvements in the certainty that its patrons can get to or from the airport without unreasonable delay. The shuttle significantly expands ground transportation options and capacity that affects need for taxis. Further, the evidence we received indicates some resistance or challenges in getting drivers to this out-of-town location when they may not receive a fare, especially in the evening. We see remaining logistical challenges and operational issues at the airport that would not automatically be resolved by a large increase in supply to the city as a whole. On the basis of the evidence received, we do not find that a public need exists in relation to airport ground transportation that justifies the addition of 21 taxis in the Fort St. John area. c) Wheelchair Accessible Transportation The applicant proposes to operate 1 wheelchair accessible taxi in Fort St. John. The applicant provided no evidence that demonstrates that a public need exists for an additional wheelchair accessible taxi in Fort St. John. The original application file does not contain any evidence in this regard, and the applicant did not present materials or testimony at the hearing. We heard that the Grande Prairie taxi companies that Baljit Thundal owns do not operate a WAT.


Teco & FSJ Cabs have operated a WAT since November 2015. Teco & FSJ Cabs presented a number of company and local agency witnesses who testified about the WAT they operate under the Teco Taxi brand. These submitters showed that capital and operating costs for the WAT are considerably higher than for a conventional taxi, and that drivers take longer to complete a WAT trip than a conventional taxi trip of the same distance. Teco & FSJ Cabs have taken various steps to ensure that drivers are trained, motivated and incentivized to provide safe and satisfactory transportation for people who use the service. For a number of years prior to his launch of a WAT, Tag Gill worked with community leaders to establish a 24/7 transportation alternative to HandyDART which operates during limited hours. These efforts were designed to ensure that drivers get the specialized training they need, and that the commercial service Teco & FSJ Cabs provide is supported and used by people in the local accessibility community. Teco & FSJ Cabs only use the WAT to serve people who require wheelchair accessible transportation. The company selects drivers for training and WAT operation who are service oriented and want to make a contribution to their community. To ensure that WAT drivers are adequately compensated, the company gives drivers 100% of the fare. Dispatchers for Teco & FSJ Cabs told us that the WAT is typically operated for 1 or 2 trips per shift. Accessibility advocates told us that the people who use wheelchair accessible transportation commonly have limited means and restrict themselves to subsidized services by accessible Transit buses and HandyDART. The evidence we received on these matters was corroborated by a number of sources and not contested by contradictory evidence. We find that a satisfactory wheelchair accessible taxi service is now available in Fort St. John, and that the service capacity considerably exceeds the level of usage. We do not find that a public need currently exists for an additional wheelchair accessible taxi in the city. 2. ‘Broad’ Indicators The applicant’s proposal, if approved, would double the number of taxis in Fort St. John. It based its proposal for this increase by comparing the proportion of taxis-to-population in Fort St. John, British Columbia, and Grande Prairie, Alberta. It also provided evidence of service problems and public dissatisfaction with taxis in Fort St. John it believes can be remedied by the entry of a competitor that significantly expands the number of taxis in the


city. Submitters contested the applicant’s proposal, primarily with evidence of low and declining trip volumes. a) Taxis & Population The applicant said it proposes to operate 21 taxis in Fort St. John because of the current number of taxis per resident. The ratio of taxis per resident in Dawson Creek is slightly more than twice as high as Fort St. John’s. The applicant submits that this justifies a doubling of authorized taxis in Fort St. John. No other direct link has been made and presented by the applicant to connect the body of information and evidence it provided with the number of taxis it says are needed. The following statement is taken from the Board’s Application Guide 1 “I want to start a new taxi service”:

The Board may consider population statistics when reviewing public need. However, the Board does not usually rely on “taxi to population” ratios to determine need as other factors may affect need for a new service. Such factors include the size of an area, public transportation options, existence of transportation hubs and vehicle usage.

The applicant noted two factors in its selection of Dawson Creek as the comparison baseline. Dawson Creek is geographically nearby and demographically similar to Fort St. John. Other than a print out of community information from Statistics Canada, the applicant’s evidence and analysis went no further. The applicant did not explain why proximity is relevant, which demographics are similar, and why population should be the one statistic for making taxi supply decisions to the exclusion of others in this case. The applicant did not provide independent research on taxi ratios or information that shows it undertook a detailed analysis of this issue. Submitters challenged the applicant’s reliance on population by providing statistics that show a wide range of taxi-to-population ratios across British Columbia. Statistics for each region of the province, and for cities of different sizes, show a 3,000% difference between the lowest and the highest. We also heard from the owner of one of the taxi companies in Dawson Creek about past and current trip volumes and vehicle usage in that city. It operates up to 6 of its 12 authorized vehicles at any one time. He testified that business is down and that between


the two companies that operate in Dawson Creek, 8 to 12 taxis are on the road at any time, not the total 29 that are authorized. We did not hear from the other Dawson Creek operator and we are unable to make a finding on the total number of taxis operating in Dawson Creek at any given time. However, we received no evidence that contradicts the state of the taxi business as described by one of two owners in that city. Further, the applicant plans to deploy its single-shift leasing model in Fort St. John, whereas Teco & FSJ Cabs double-shift their vehicles. Any comparison of taxi-to-population ratios must account for this distinction. The BCTA illustrated this point in its submissions, and we agree. As discussed further in section (b) immediately below, our review of statistics from Teco & FSJ Cabs indicates that some vehicles are double shifted (they operate for 2 shifts per day) and some are single shifted (they operate one shift per day). They also show a significant and sustained expansion in the number of shifts operated from 2012 (often up to 10 shifts per day) to present (well over 20 and, in December 2015, up to 29 shifts per day). Double-shifting taxis can double a taxi fleet’s capacity on a 24-hour basis and the applicant did not account for specific community differences such as double-shifting vs. single-shifting. In the circumstances, we do not find that the applicant’s comparison of 29 authorized taxis in Dawson Creek with the 21 authorized in Fort St. John is, in and of itself, useful for identifying or quantifying public need for taxis in Fort St. John. The applicant is responsible for supporting its application with a rationale based in evidence. We received different population numbers and summary calculations. We received no research or substantive analysis that supports the ratio and comparison method the applicant selected. We received evidence that shows that the applicant’s comparison numbers do not reflect the reality of the actual number of taxis on the road. Multiple deficiencies in the applicant’s use of a taxi-to-population ratio leave us unconvinced that it provides a reasonable basis for identifying or quantifying public need for taxis in Fort St. John. The applicant made a number of statements that the high ratio of taxis to population in Grande Prairie bolsters its case. We are not convinced. At separate times, we received information from the applicant that 300+ taxis operate in Grande Prairie, and that 230 to 300 operate there. The applicant identified Grande Prairie’s population as 60,000 and 50,000 at different times. Further, application materials describe Baljit Thundal’s four taxi


companies as a monopoly in Grande Prairie. We heard testimony that the four companies have a combined market share of between 65% and 80% in the city, and that they operate “55+” taxis on a single-shifted basis. The information comes from a first-hand source but the numbers are imprecise and do not add up. We do not know how 23% of taxis (if we use 55 of 230) would be so productive as to command 65% to 80% of the business. We did not receive a precise and usable description of the Grande Prairie taxi market. Given the information we have, we do not consider a comparison of the Grande Prairie market with Fort St. John as a reasonable basis for identifying or quantifying public need. b) Taxi Operations in Fort St. John The applicant supplied letters and a large volume of evidence it gathered online to support its case that public need exists for a doubling of taxi supply in Fort St. John. Before discussing that evidence, we turn to the evidence that we generally found most persuasive as a broad indicator of whether public need exists. This is evidence from submitters indicating that Teco & FSJ Cabs made significant improvements in the availability and quality of taxi service in Fort St. John and area. Teco & FSJ Cabs drivers, dispatchers and one of its managers testified about company operations since ownership changed in September 2012. Key parts of the testimony were supported by data, documentation and a live demonstration of the company’s cloud-based dispatch system. The applicant provided posts on the PJXM News Facebook page in 2011 that highlights a statement by the prior president (and owner) of Teco & FSJ Cabs that only 7 to 10 of its 23 licensed taxis were needed on the road at any one time. Shortly afterwards, prompted by the Board’s periodic review of unused taxi plates, the company voluntarily surrendered four plates it was not using. This reduced the companies’ fleet to their current size of 19. Now, identifiers for the 19 authorized vehicles have been activated and one of the 19 is a van dedicated to wheelchair trips. Teco & FSJ Cabs have, since the change in ownership in 2012, made two changes that substantively expanded the number of vehicles it can have on the road. They responded strategically to a drivers’ shortage and started to double-shift vehicles.


First, the companies faced the long-standing challenge of hiring taxi drivers in a small, local labour market that pays oil patch wages. Tag Gill undertook a significant strategic investment of time and money to bring Vancouver taxi drivers to Fort St. John and show them that they could do well by moving and driving for Teco & FSJ Cabs. That strategy, plus the successful retention of most employees who stayed with the new owner in September 2012, significantly improved the availability of taxi drivers in the city. The applicant pointed to in-town ads that Teco & FSJ Cabs now run for drivers as contradictory evidence. We see it as consistent with the multi-pronged strategy and ongoing effort that Teco & FSJ Cabs are taking to retain and renew their labour pool so that taxis are on the road when the community needs them. Second, Teco & FSJ Cabs began to double-shift some of its vehicles. The company provided vehicle use statistics that include the weekly peak in daily shifts. The number of daily shifts first reached 20 (when shifts exceed the number of vehicles) during three weeks in 2014 (February, June and November). For 26 out of 33 weeks starting January 18, 2015, Teco & FSJ Cabs had weekly peaks of 20 to 26 shifts per day. For the subsequent 23 weeks (until the week starting January 31, 2016), 20 weeks had weekly peaks of 20 or more shifts per day (peaking at 29 shifts for the week starting December 27, 2015). We have not accounted for days when vehicles are out of service. Nonetheless, we find that Teco & FSJ Cabs double-shifts some but not all the vehicles in its fleet. In the Fall of 2012, after Teco & FSJ Cabs changed ownership, the average weekly peak in shifts per day was 10. For the first eight months of 2015, the average was more than double. The number of drivers’ hours doubled during these time periods. The data also shows a similar growth in year-over-year weekly revenue until February 2015. At that point, revenue growth softened and, as of March 2015, the trend turned to a net decline until the end of August 2015. This is when Teco & FSJ Cabs submitted their statistics in response to the Yellow Cabs application. Closer to the hearing, it provided more recent statistics. Especially since November 2015, the statistics show significant increases in vehicle shifts (as well as strong growth in driver hours) with significant year-over-year declines (roughly 15 to 30%) in the number of trips and revenues. Since the change in ownership, we note that Teco & FSJ Cabs have sustained a significant and steady expansion in the number of vehicles on the road, and that in the year prior to the hearing, year-over year trips and revenues have dropped.


In sum, more taxis were on the road in 2015 and revenues were down. Since early 2015, it appears that vehicle capacity exceeded demand. This is corroborated by a driver who states that business has been slow since he started in July 2015. Drivers commented that the introduction of shuttles affected their business. Bernard Thompson said it has become more difficult to make money. A licensee in Dawson Creek said that business is down in their community. Baljit Thundal said her Grande Prairie business declined since the drop in oil prices. Many witnesses referenced either a slowdown or softening in the Fort St. John economy. Some commented that it is the worst it has been and some highlighted the resilience of the local economy and its promise of future growth. We accept the testimony of Moira Green and the analysis in some of the news articles we received that Fort St. John has a diversified economy that has enabled it to fare better than some cities in Alberta and Saskatchewan that are more dependent on high energy prices. And as Doug Parcells and others have testified, work by BC Hydro on Site C is making a significant contribution to the local economy. In terms of the local taxi market, we give considerable weight to the statistical data we received from Teco & FSJ Cabs. The applicant questioned the reliability of the data given that submitters Teco & FSJ Cabs transferred raw data to Excel to produce the summary reports. The operational data was disclosed to participants in advance, commented on by Tag Gill under oath, and subject to cross-questioning by the applicant, who has considerable experience with taxi operations. Reams of raw data are not usable on their own and we expect taxi companies that want us to consider this quantified evidence to convert it into a usable summary report. Tag Gill did this and we view the report as reliable. With regard to service quality, Teco & FSJ Cabs presented evidence to show a substantial improvement since the companies came under new management. In February 2016, the City of Fort St. John’s supervisor of the Bylaw Enforcement Department wrote that big improvements had been made in many aspects of the business. This includes record keeping, staff cooperation during inspections and especially the cleanliness and mechanical condition of the vehicles. We find this evidence compelling. Teco & FSJ Cabs have implemented a GPS-enabled, cloud-based dispatch system. The companies use the system in manual mode; however, they are able to see vehicles on a live map. Teco & FSJ Cabs provided operational statistics (including response times, trip volumes and revenues) since the change in ownership in September 2012. The companies presented average times for each hour of the week for dispatched taxis to arrive at the pickup


location. From April 30, 2015, to January 30, 2016, the minimum hourly average was 5:49 minutes, the maximum was 13:00 minutes and the average was 7:32 minutes. Overall, taxis arrived at the pick-up location in 10 minutes or less for 80.3% of dispatched trips and 14 minutes or less for 90.7% of dispatched trips. The companies also presented response time averages to the “meter on” event. These averages are typically 1.5 to 2 minutes longer than arrival times. c) Competition & Public Need The applicant submitted that introducing a substantive competitor to Fort St. John will spur Teco & FSJ Cabs to address service quality deficiencies and provide the services that people need. The submission is partly presented as evidence of public need. We view such linkages as opinion and not evidence of public need to be considered here. We address submissions relating to the benefits of competition and limitations of monopolies in the “Sound Economic Conditions” section. d) Community Experiences The applicant provided the following indicators of community support, most of it from online sources:

• 10 letters that support new competition in the local taxi market or the applicant • PJXM News Facebook posts from 2011 • Posts from the Yellow Cabs’ FSJ Facebook page in 2015/16 • An online survey that generated 50 responses and a second survey that generated

18 responses • E-petition with 98 signatures plus comments from many of the respondents

The support letters we received provided the most context and detail. They are the most useful in identifying issues with the existing service and providing support for the applicant or added competition. The letters come from a variety of sectors in the community yet overall, we find that they offer a very small sample of businesses and organizations in the community. A considerable volume of comments were obtained through social media. Many comments are highly critical of past services. Of note, the PJXM posts pre-dated the current ownership of Teco & FSJ Cabs and we found them to be of little relevance to this application.


With the social media and online information, we received 2 brief summaries prepared by the applicant titled “There is a public need for the service” and “Social media reports - Does the public need another taxi service.” The applicant’s summaries essentially reiterate its rationale for making its application rather than analyzing public perspectives recorded on social media and online platforms. During the hearing, the partners and General Manager for the applicant made general references to these materials. The applicant did not specifically link the social media information to public need for its proposed 21 taxis. Board application materials set out the Board’s expectations in relation to the use of, and the respective weight it gives to, form letters, surveys, petitions, or general social media posts as indicators of public need. In this respect, we note that the Board’s policy on the use of social media evidence was shared with the applicant during the Pre-Hearing Conference on January 14, 2016. The Board’s Policy OP II.5, titled “Submitting Social Media Information” states:

Social media has become a major source for public opinion and impromptu expression. Whether it is relevant to an application before the Board will depend upon its probative value. Social media evidence, like other evidence, must [be] capable of being tested and verified. The Board will review the social media posts and decide what weight they should receive. Quantity does not necessarily equate to relevancy or reliability. More trustworthy and probative evidence will receive more weight. In reviewing public need, the Board finds specific information from individuals about their use of a passenger directed vehicles – how often, when, where, service quality experience – [more useful] than petitions, form letters or general social media posts. The Board expects applicants (or submitters) to analyze information and tell the Board what it shows or proves. Reams of raw data, such as strings of posts, may not be meaningful to the Board. Putting raw data into a table or chart may show trends or common responses. A sample of the raw data should also be provided for reference. The Board must know the identity of people who post on social media sites in case it has follow-up questions. When social media evidence is submitted, the person who submits it is expected to document and authenticate it. The Board does not accept unsolicited social media posts. To document social media evidence, persons submitting such evidence should provide the following:

• A complete copy of the material being submitted (in writing or electronically)

• The date the material was retrieved


• The URL from where the material was retrieved • The identity and contact information for the persons who wrote the

text, tweet, post or other social media comment, and • A copy of notice to the people whose social media texts, tweets, posts

or other social media comments are being submitted advising them that the information is being disclosed to the Board as part of its consideration of a specific application and may be treated as public information.

Whether evidence is received as sworn testimony, as a survey or as online social media posts, the same underlying principles apply: evidence must be relevant, reliable, and probative that is, capable of proving a fact. Evidence must be capable of being tested and verified. We do not find that the social media posts used for purposes of this application demonstrated compelling evidence of public need. On the basis of the social media posts used by the applicant, we were not shown where people making posts reside, how often they use taxis, when they experienced taxi service issues or when and how often they would use the applicant’s service. As well, we note another issue that applies generally to information the applicant collected online, such as social media posts, survey responses and petitions. We find that these materials often appeared as “leading”, rather than neutral information-gathering instruments designed to elicit objective results that we can rely on. For example, the preambles of these information-gathering tools present the applicant’s views before members of the community have the chance to provide theirs. In relation to surveys specifically, the wording of many questions (and many of the multiple-choice options) is leading and reflects the applicant’s view that there should be more taxis and another competitor in Fort St. John. On the whole, the applicant’s materials lack sufficient evidentiary weight to show that a public need exists to add a large, new taxi service in Fort St. John. We held a public hearing in Fort St. John to hear the applicant and anyone affected or interested in taxis. The applicant presented a total of six witnesses: 3 representing the company and its operational plan, 1 leader in the hotel and hospitality industry, 1 manager at the airport, and 1 former taxi driver/dispatcher. We did not hear from individuals who use taxis with any regularity to get to the airport, to get to work, to get to a doctor’s


appointment or to get home from the bars. We did not hear from passengers who have firsthand experience with the problems that are discussed on social media and in letters. On the other hand, three out of four taxi companies came to the hearing in person. They told us first hand of historical problems, the changes and strategies they implemented and the incremental improvements they made. Along with documentation and data that appeared reliable to the Board, taxi companies presented in-person witnesses who were subject to the test of cross-questioning at the hearing. Of note, the manager for Teco & FSJ Cabs told of the companies’ decision to not make a name change when the companies were purchased in September 2012. Instead, they chose to address the underlying challenges by making steady, incremental improvements. They did this over the past 3.5 years. It appears that the “Teco” brand was tarnished before the Gills took the companies over and this shows up in some of the public comments. The testimony of local accessibility advocates, a letter from the bylaw compliance supervisor for the City of Fort St. John, statistical reports and the evidence of the BCTA president indicate that since the change in ownership in 2012, Teco &FSJ Cabs have made significant improvements in taxi availability and service quality. The applicant presented general evidence that tells us that some challenges still exist. We give more weight to the testimony and supporting evidence of submitters that taxi supply and quality have substantially improved and that supply now exceeds demand with few exceptions. On the whole, the applicant has not satisfied us that a public need exists for a new fleet of taxis in Fort St. John. B. ‘FIT, PROPER & CAPABLE’ Is the applicant a fit and proper person to provide the proposed service and is the applicant capable of providing the service? The Board looks at fitness in two parts:

a) is the applicant a “fit and proper person” to provide the proposed service; and b) is the applicant capable of providing that service?


a) ‘Fit and Proper’ Fit and proper persons conduct themselves and their business lawfully. They uphold the integrity of the industry and promote public confidence in the industry. The Board looks at how applicants say they will run their business. It asks questions like these:

• Does the applicant seem to understand passenger transportation laws and policies? • Is the applicant’s business set up to follow these laws? • Does the applicant have procedures in place for drivers or employees who are not

compliant with the Passenger Transportation Act, regulations or company policies? The partners for the applicant each completed the Board form, “Disclosure of Unlawful Activity & Bankruptcy.” No discrepancies were identified. An NSC certificate was issued to Baljit Thundal on May 22, 2015. During the hearing, submitters questioned the applicant on details relating to local and provincial requirements under the Fort St. John Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw, insurance coverage, company structures and plans to charge flat rates. The sometimes general responses to technical questions suggested limitations in familiarity. We heard no evidence of non-compliance and we accept the applicant’s stance that it intends to comply with all applicable laws. These requirements are defined and we have confidence that the partners and General Manager can quickly attain the awareness needed. The applicant indicated it intends to charge flat fares and one of the witnesses testified that the applicant told him that he would be charged flat fares. Under the Passenger Transportation Act, licensees must comply with rates approved or set by the Board. In this case, the applicant only applied to obtain Board approval of metered rates. Despite the noted concerns, we are satisfied that the applicant is fit and proper. b) ‘Capable’ The partners each have considerable experience in the taxi industry. Baljit Thundal owns four taxi companies and manages a substantial fleet of taxis in Alberta. Gurkanwal Bains is a part-owner of a pizza franchise in Fort St. John and has been a taxi driver and


owner/operator in Grande Prairie. Navdeep Thundal, the General Manager for Fort St. John has considerable exposure and experience in the taxi business and has completed work for a business degree. The applicant’s company representatives are competent business people with the ability to chart a business course that will be viable for them. The applicant has sufficient funds available to fund its planned start-up costs and to exceed its plan if needed. We requested and received third party verification of the funds. Testimony and cross-questioning on the applicant’s business plan yielded statements showing that the applicant views the plan as a proposal and intends to take a flexible approach with implementation. We recognize the need for flexibility to adjust for new insights or changes in market conditions. Nonetheless, we draw attention to these matters:

• The applicant’s claim that newer vehicles will be operated did not square with a $110,000 budget for 21 vehicles (including a WAT) and its business model.

• The proposal to operate a wheelchair accessible taxi is not accompanied by a plan to put the vehicle on the road. Without a plan we are not satisfied the applicant is capable of adding or implementing a wheelchair accessible taxi.

• The business plan indicated that Yellow Cabs will implement a digital dispatch system in Fort St. John while the oral testimony of Baljit Thundal indicated that it would start with telephone dispatch and implement a digital system when one is available at the right time for the right price.

The applicant testified that it has lots of money, it can afford to operate at a loss for an extended period and that it will do what it takes to make the business work. Questions about parts of the business plan often resulted in general statements of this nature rather than specifics that showed the applicant’s research, thinking or implementation plan. Oral testimony often conflicted with documentary evidence. We recognize that one of the partners operates a taxi company in Alberta. We are not convinced that the applicant has a sufficiently developed a starting plan and commitment to deliver the type of taxi service it proposed to the Board. Submitters pointed to a possible conflict with the Vehicles For Hire Regulation Bylaw that requires drivers to be an employee or owner of the vehicle. The applicant insisted that the bylaw was not relevant to this application. Our concern is not with the bylaw per se, but whether the business model proposed, which was central to the application, will work in


Fort St. John. The absence of clarity on this issue further prevents us from being able to find that the applicant is capable of providing the service it has outlined in its business plan and testimony. Based on the evidence provided, on the whole, we do not find that the applicant is capable of providing the service it proposed in Fort St. John. C. ‘SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS’ Would the application, if granted, promote sound economic conditions in the passenger transportation business in British Columbia? The Board looks at the “economic conditions” issue from a wide-ranging view. The economic conditions of the “transportation business in British Columbia” are considered ahead of the economic and financial interests of an individual applicant or operator. The Board supports healthy competition. The Board discourages competition that could unduly harm existing service providers. The applicant submitted that competition in Fort St. John will spur existing companies to improve the quality of their services and meet the needs of the community. The applicant asked many submitter witnesses whether competition was beneficial. People generally responded in the affirmative. Further, the applicant gave us online information that sets out the benefits of competition and problems with monopolies. We received general opinion about competition. Opinions do not give us an evidentiary basis for answering the question we must answer now: Would the approval of this application promote sound economic conditions in the transportation business in Fort St. John and area? In this case, submitters provided compelling evidence that the number of taxis on the road exceeds demand at most or all times of the day. They also provided compelling evidence that they have substantively invested in and improved the standard of service that passengers need and expect. On the other hand, the applicant has not shown to the Board that the existing local taxi service is not meeting the needs of the community, such that a new taxi company with 21 taxis should be introduced in Fort St. John and area. Further,


uncertainties exist as to whether the applicant would provide the high standard of service it describes in its business plan. The applicant states that approving its application would expand the market and not hurt the existing operator. This bold claim is not supported by information or evidence that identifies the existence of a significant untapped market in Fort St. John and area. We do not accept it. Approving a doubling of taxis in Fort St. John would substantially divide the customer base, trips and revenues. Some taxi patrons would welcome a new operator. However, the community would be at risk of losing taxi companies that have successfully built up capacity to reliably meet the local taxi transportation needs since the new owners purchased them in 2012. These measurable improvements would be at stake:

• Proven company strategy for recruiting drivers when the labour market is tight • Incremental upgrades to newer vehicles • Established business operations with systematized record keeping systems • GPS, cloud-based dispatch system that passengers can access with an app • Service-oriented wheelchair accessible taxi that is available 24/7

Additionally, the community has the benefit of two large and related taxi companies that provide the scale and critical volume required to operate a digital, app based dispatch system and distribute the costs of operating a wheelchair accessible taxi. App-based dispatch is becoming a preferred way to request service by smartphone. Taxi users in a variety of markets are increasingly expecting this option. The Board believes that approving this application would have an unduly detrimental impact on the passenger transportation business in Fort St. John and area. It would result in two major competitors with business that would neither be economic nor sustainable. Overall, taxi service providers would have much to lose, as would the people in the community who rely on taxi companies for transportation.


CONCLUSION For the reasons above, this application is refused.


Appendix A: Procedural Matters

A. PRE-HEARING RULINGS

1. Deadline for Hearing Submitters

The Board published the original Notice of Hearing on November 25, 2015. The deadline for persons to participate as submitters was December 9, 2015. Original counsel for Teco & FSJ Cabs submitted that the time should be extended to comply with published Board rules. On December 2, 2015, the Board re-published a Notice of Hearing with an amended deadline of December 16, 2015, for purposes of filing as a submitter at the hearing.

2. Pre-Hearing Conference

On January 14, 2016, we convened a pre-hearing conference (PHC) to discuss pre-hearing steps and procedures for the hearing.

3. Hearing Dates

The hearing was originally scheduled for February 1 – 3, 2016. Hearing dates were adjourned twice at the request of Teco & FSJ Cabs. The applicant opposed both adjournments. The Board reviewed the requests in light of section 13 of the Passenger Transportation Act and approved them both. We published Change of Hearing Date Notices on January 6, 2016 and March 2, 2016. We held the hearing in Fort St. John on March 21-23, 2016.

4. Freedom of Information Request

Teco & FSJ Cabs made a request to obtain application materials under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Such requests are subject to legislation and processes that are separate from those that apply to application decisions the Board makes. The applicant was made aware of the request. At the pre-hearing conference of January 14, 2016, we advised participants that information was about to be released with some redactions. We ordered that materials sent to Teco & FSJ Cabs be sent to all submitters. The Board disclosed materials to submitters on January 18, 2016.


5. Teco & FSJ Cabs’ Request to Supply Financial Information in Confidence

On February 5 and 8, 2016, Teco & FSJ Cabs asked to submit a financial report in confidence to the Board. The submitters wanted to show that they are subsidizing the taxi operation in Fort St. John. The applicant did not oppose the request. On February 16, 2016, we agreed to receive this financial information from Teco & FSJ Cabs in confidence. We set the following conditions:

• Teco & FSJ Cabs must provide a public summary of the information, • any projections must be disclosed, • the Board may hear testimony during an “in camera” session that will be restricted

to the content of the financial information and followed by a summary of proceedings and an opportunity for the applicant to comment.

6. Teco & FSJ Cabs’ Request for Expanded Disclosure of Application Materials

Teco & FSJ Cabs sought an expanded disclosure of application materials that were disclosed to submitters on January 18, 2016. The applicant opposed further disclosure arguing that Board Rule 12 (“Confidential Information from an Applicant”) should apply.

On February 16, 2016, we ordered further disclosure of application information except for private financial information and net worth statements, and the names of individuals identified in strings of Facebook posts.

7. Disclosure of Evidence

At the pre-hearing conference, we ruled that participants must provide witness lists, documents and media presentations to the Board and each other by February 8, 2016. This date was later extended to February 9, 2016, due to the provincial holiday. Participants complied with the deadline.

8. Late Addition of Witnesses

On February 10, 2016, in response to a Board request, the applicant added its two partners and Navdeep Thundal to its list of witnesses. On February 16, 2016, we ruled that Mohan Kang could appear as a BCTA witness.


9. Accommodation of Representative’s Absence

On March 7, 2016, Mohan Kang advised that he was unable to attend the hearing on March 23, 2016, as representative for Bernard Thompson and the BC Taxi Association. He asked that daily hearing times be extended past 5:00 p.m. and that his closing statements be made in writing.

On March 16, 2016, we ruled that the oral hearing dates remain as scheduled (March 21 – 23), that hearing hours may be extended to 7:00 p.m. if required, and that during the hearing, we will hear from all participants on whether closing statements should be written or oral.

10. Court Reporter

On March 8, 2016, further to Rule 32 of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, we approved a request from Teco & FSJ Cabs to hire a court reporter to record the hearing.

B. RULINGS AT THE HEARING

1. Exhibits

a) Applicant’s Additional Support Materials

At the start of the hearing, participants tendered their exhibits. The applicant submitted three exhibits that had previously been disclosed (Exhibits 12, 13 and 14).

The applicant also proffered a binder of additional support materials as an exhibit. Navdeep Thundal stated that they obtained additional signatures and letters on the belief that they could continue to collect them. Counsel for Teco & FSJ Cabs opposed the acceptance of these materials as the deadline for exchanging materials had passed.

With respect to disclosure of evidence prior to a hearing, Board Rule 24(12) states:

The Board may refuse to accept the evidence offered pursuant to Rule 24 if the Board is satisfied that:

a) the evidence is not likely relevant; b) the evidence would not assist the Board in its decision making process;


c) there has been a willful or recurring failure to comply with the Act, these Rules or orders of the Board; or

d) the acceptance of the evidence would unduly prejudice other parties or otherwise result in a breach of natural justice.

At the PHC and in various communications, the Board directed the applicant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 24 in particular. In light of these rules and notice to the applicant of deadlines that apply to participants, we did not accept this late evidence.

b) Teco & FSJ Cabs’ Exhibit Book Update

Teco & FSJ Cabs requested that Tab 4 of its exhibit book (Exhibit 15) be updated with the most recent copy of applicant’s materials as disclosed further to our order of February 16, 2016. No participants objected. We accepted Exhibit 15 with updated materials at Tab 4.

c) Information about the Applicant’s Social Media/Survey Evidence

Following the testimony of Navdeep Thundal on March 21, 2016, we asked for an analysis of the survey the applicant had submitted as Exhibit 14. The applicant produced materials as requested on March 22, 2016. These were entered as Exhibit 25.

d) Teco & FSJ Cabs’ Dispatch System

When the General Manager for Teco & FSJ Cabs took the stand as witness, counsel indicated that an iPad view of the submitters’ dispatch system (Gata Hub) would be referenced during the testimony. The applicant did not object to the viewing of the dispatch system. This information was transient and not recorded or entered as an exhibit.

2. Definition of Fort St. John

The published summary for Application 216-15 first describes the applicant’s proposal as a new taxi service to operate “in the Fort St. John area.” The proposed terms and conditions includes an “originating area” that states, “Transportation of passengers may only originate from points in Fort St. John.” They also include a “destination area” that states “Transportation of passengers may terminate at any point in British Columbia and beyond the British Columbia border when engaged in an extra-provincial undertaking.”


On February 16, 2016, the Board Director wrote to the applicant asking it to define Fort St. John with respect to the application. The applicant responded on February 19, 2016 with a very broad definition. The Board Director followed up in a letter of March 1, 2016, and requested a succinct definition. The applicant responded on March 7, 2016, with a description that includes the following points north of the Peace River:

• North Peace Airport • Charlie Lake • Taylor • Site C Dam site • North of Fort St. John (described as points between 40 and 200 km north which

includes LNG Northwest)

At the hearing, we asked submitters to comment on the applicant’s definition, as noted above. Teco Taxi & FSJ Cabs submitted that the application should be based on the strict legal boundaries of the City of Fort St. John. The description of ‘40 to 200 kilometres’ north of the City is both unprecedented in breadth and unclear. They submitted that parties in regional communities have not received proper notice of the application in these broad terms such that, if approved it could affect them without providing them sufficient opportunity to respond. The applicant said that it has made submissions based on an application to operate within the boundaries of the city.

Bernard Thompson and the BCTA agreed with Teco & FSJ Cabs. The submitters also noted that the application is changing day by day, and that this is problematic for submitters involved in the process and other license holders that may be unknowingly affected by this application.

The applicant replied that it will provide evidence of need for the areas proposed, especially at the airport. The applicant indicated a willingness to adhere to the Board decision on this matter.

We did not rule on the matter at the hearing. We indicated it would comply with the Board decision on the matter.

The published application summary identifies “Fort St. John and area” without describing the area. The terms and conditions specified for the licence refer only to “Fort St. John.” During the hearing, a staff representative of the City of Fort St. John spoke about the constraints of city boundaries which exclude locations in the immediate area with close ties to the city.


Defining the boundaries of “Fort St. John and area” and “Fort St. John” by the constrained municipal boundaries is overly technical and narrow. It would unduly restrict service to the community.

For the purposes of this application, we approached “Fort St. John” with a more practical definition as encompassing Fort St. John and the immediate area which includes:

• North Peace Airport near Fort St. John (YXJ) • Taylor and Site C as far south as the Peace River • Charlie Lake

We excluded points ‘40 to 200 kilometers’ north. This is too ambiguous and too far to warrant inclusion.

Taxi companies that could be directly affected by this application with this originating area already operate within the City of Fort St. John. Adequate notice has been provided. Submitters at the hearing presented evidence and cross examined witnesses who gave evidence relating to areas we are including in the operating area.

3. Exclusion of Witnesses

Counsel for Teco & FSJ Cabs asked us to exclude witnesses from the hearing room. We ruled against the exclusion of witnesses. Given the nature of the proceedings where support witnesses speak to individual experiences, we did not see a need to exclude witnesses from observing the hearing.

4. Audience Member’s Request to Appear as Witness

At the hearing, the owner of a second taxi company in Dawson Creek asked to appear as a witness. The applicant objected because this individual was not on the witness list, and as we had ruled that the applicant could not submit evidence it had not previously disclosed. The BC Taxi Association asked the Board to allow the witness to appear. Counsel for Teco & FSJ supported the request and submitted that the applicant is seeking to operate within a wide operating area and now wishes to exclude the participation of companies that may be affected by the application.

Pursuant to Rule 24(4), we did not allow the witness.


5. Format & Timing of Closing Statements

On March 22, 2016, after discussing closing statements with participants, we ruled that:

• Participants who are present on the final day of the hearing will make an oral closing statement (submitters followed by the applicant)

• By 4:30 p.m. on March 24, 2016, submitters will send written closing statements to the Board and other participants.

• By 4:30 p.m. on March 29, 2016, the first business day after the Easter long weekend, the applicant will send its written closing statement to the Board and other participants.

Participants adhered to this schedule.

6. In-Camera Proceedings

Further to conditions we set for Teco & FSJ Cabs on February 16, 2016, in order to receive its financial information in confidence, we conducted an-in camera session with Teco & FSJ Cabs to discuss those materials.

On the morning of March 23, 2016, we told participants that we decided to hold an in-camera session with the applicant to discuss financial matters.

After conducting in-camera sessions on the afternoon of March 23, 2016, we reconvened the full hearing and the Panel Chair summarized the evidence heard during the in-camera sessions. We also directed the applicant to send the Board third-party evidence of funds it has available to invest in a new taxi service, and we indicated that the information would be received in confidence, pursuant to Board Rules. We set 4:30 p.m. on March 29, 2016, as the deadline. We received this information within the deadline.


Appendix B: Taxi Rates

Table 3 compares the rates of four licensees with rates proposed by the applicant.

Table 3

Metered Rates Teco & FSJ

Cabs William Peter

Aylward* Bernard

Thompson Yellow Cabs (proposed)

Initial “flag” 4.40 3.90 3.80 4.00

Additional distance (per kilometre) 2.53 1.85 1.79 2.50

Waiting time (per hour) 47.91 42.54 41.34 45.00

These rates include 5% GST.

* NOTE: Rates for William Peter Aylward increased 2.9% effective June 30, 2016 as permitted under the Board’s Taxi and Limousine Cost Index. At the time of the hearing, rates for William Peter Aylward matched the above-noted rates for Bernard Thompson.

licence application decision (taxi - new) · licence application decision (taxi - new) application...

Documents