Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I just get the impression that the City (which has known for a number of years that Uber wanted to operate here), has done nothing, and this is a convenient explanation.
|
Zero disagreement here that the city hasn't done anything.
My stance on it is that the city can (and should) absolutely change the by-laws in place preventing Uber from operating, and they absolutely created this mess themselves.
However what I don't buy is that the insurance argument is a red herring or convenient excuse, because it's a valid issue. I think the city is largely hiding behind it to deflect blame, but I still think it's valid.
Now if Intact/Provincial regs actually go through with semi-commercial insurance, it will be very telling if the City still takes a hardline stance and refuses to change the bylaws, although it won't surprise me at all if they go that route.