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?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In this scenario the issue revolves around the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence in a hearing regarding the potential revocation of Mr Ws ta... View the full answer