The Hogtown Licensing Commission is an agency of the city of Hogtown. Under the municipal business

licensing by-law, the commission regulates the taxicab industry by issuing licences to own and drive

taxis, setting standards, and holding hearings regarding the suspension or revocation of the licences

of taxi owners and drivers.

Mr W owns and drives a taxi. Two months ago, he drove a woman from her home to her doctor's

office. The following day, she complained to the commission that Mr W made sexual advances toward

her. After investigating, the commission proposed to revoke Mr W's licence to drive a taxi.

At the hearing subsequently held by the commissioner, the commission staff attempt to introduce

evidence of three previous infractions of standards in support of their request to revoke the licence.

Mr W's representative challenges the admissibility of this evidence. The evidence that the

commission staff want to introduce is as follows:

Seven years ago, a passenger complained that Mr W used profane language while driving

her to a hairdressing appointment. The evidence consists of an inspector's report in Mr W's

file, stating that the inspector interviewed both the passenger and Mr W, and that Mr W

denied the allegations. The file also contains a letter from the passenger setting out her

complaint. The commission staff intend to call the inspector as a witness, but not the

complainant.

Five years ago, a taxi owned and driven by Mr W had a broken trunk door, causing

discomfort and inconvenience to a group of passengers. The evidence consists of an

inspector's report found in Mr W's file. According to the report, the inspector received a

complaint from a passenger stating that, because the trunk would not open, the passenger

could not put his luggage in the trunk and had to put it in the back seat, crowding himself

and another passenger. There is no written or signed statement from the passenger, and no

evidence that anyone from the commission inspected the vehicle, notified Mr W of the

complaint, or took any disciplinary action. The commission staff do not intend to call the

inspector or the complainant to testify.

Three years ago, Mr W allowed another driver to drive a taxi he owned when the brakes

were worn and needed replacing. The evidence consists of a report prepared and signed by

a mechanic employed by the commission to carry out safety checks on taxis, stating that she

inspected the vehicle and found that the brakes were worn to the point that it was

dangerous to operate the vehicle.

1. Is any of this evidence admissible? Why, or why not?

2. If the evidence is admissible, what considerations should the commission take into account in

deciding what weight it should be given?