Uber's Argumentative Essay

Uber denies the City of Toronto 's argument that it it 's both a taxi and limousine service, because it does not dispatch drivers directly. They further argue that a license requirement violates their right to freedom of expression. Uber plans to argue that the City of Toronto’s perception that it 's conducting illegal taxi and limo services isn 't well founded and it 's licensing requirement likely violates the Constitution.

In a factum that was recently filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Uber disputes the City of Toronto 's argument that it 's limo or taxi service due to the fact that none of Uber 's employees respond to service requests from passengers and they don 't dispatch limos, taxis, or any other vehicles.

Alternatively, it provides a smartphone app that permits passengers to request rides and for drivers to accept rides, and both parties have the choice of rejecting these requests within specific time constraints. The filing in court is in response to the City of Toronto 's permanent injunction application to end all of Uber’s operations. Uber has serviced Toronto since 2012 without holding a license,

Alternatively, Uber simply facilitates a communications platform that provides the delivery of such requests from passengers to drivers, according to the filing. The filing further indicates that it 's the drivers who ultimately accept those requests in their entirety, but the filing adds that if the court determines that Uber is the party who is accepting both calls and requests, Uber would then respond with the argument that the license requirement established in the Municipal Code violates the Charter of Rights & Freedoms under the Canadian Freedom of Expression provision due to the fact that the provision of the Municipal Code that prohibits any person or entity from accepting calls for either limo or taxi services without the benefit of a license is essentially a restriction on a communication type for a