CANCELLED LICENSE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 235, 30 June 1922, Page 7

CANCELLED LICENSE

CONTROL OF TAXI-STANDS ‘ CITY COUNCIL’S POWERS i I "A judicial or quasi-iudicial dqter--1 mlaa,tion is not void and a mere nullity simply because there is no evidence to support it,” said Mr. Justice Salmond in the Supreme Court Yesterday. He was giving judgment bn the appeal of Edwin Charles Young against a decision by Mr. Hunt, S.M., upholding the City Council's cancellation of his .license as a taxi-driver ifor a breach of tho by-laws. Tho bffence- of the appellant was that of plying for hire without a license on &uly 11, 1921. I “The council’s power of cancellation, {conferred by clause 633 of the city bylaws," said His Honour, \ “refers to licenses ‘held by any person, who shall be convicted of any offence, whether for a. breach of this by-law or otherwise, during the currency of the license, or who is otherwise deemed by the council unfit to hold a license. I The appellant had not been convicted of an offence, but because of his willful refusal to obey the conditions attached to his license ho was deemed by !the council unfit to hold a license, land his license was cancelled on this (ground. ... I “I am of opinion that even if the ■appellant is right in his contention that the condition attached to his license is unreasonable and ultra vires, such a defence is-not available in the present proceedings. Even if the order of the council cancelling his license was improperly made, he cannot treat it as a mere nullity, and carry on business under the cancelled license as if no such order had been made. In exercising its power (of cancelling licenses the council acts iu a quasi-judicial capacity. Its jurisdition is to determine, after hearing the licensee in his defence, whether in the opinion of the council the licensee is unfit ,to hold a license. The council has heard and determined the matter. arid has made a cancellation order which is, on its face, a valid order. It may that there was no evidence on which that order could have been properly made. It may be that the order was made under some error of law of fact. But it is on the face of it the kind of order which the council has jurisdiction to _maxe, and made on a ground which is sufficient under the by-law—namely, the unfitness of the licensee to hold a license. Such an order so made in the exercise of a quasi-judicial jurisdiction cannot be treated as a nullity in a merely collateral procedings such as tho present prosecution for carrying on business without a license. In such a collateral proceeding the Court cannot go behind the order and disregard it on any such ground as that now suggested. A judicial or quasi-judi-cial determination is not void and a mere nullity simply because there is no evidence to support it. .. . . If the appellant desires a judicial determination as to the council’s power to impose the condition to which he objects, it would seem that his proper remedy is to apply to the council for a new and unconditional license for the now current year, and if such a license is refused, then to proceed for » mandamus requiring the council to hear ffnd 'determine his application according to law. “I express no opinion whatever on the merits of the appellant’s contention as to the powers of the City Council. I dispose of the appeal conclusively on the ground that such a contention cannot be raised in the present proceedings. The appellant will pay costs of the appeal, £5 5s J’ — ——— —g