[kevincox]

> B.C.’s attorney general was named as a respondent in the complaint and in its submission said that in early 2020 it implemented a 30-cent per-trip fee under the passenger transportation act or regulation as an incentive for ride-hailing apps to provide a wheelchair accessible ride option, not to exempt them from offering one.

I think this is the interesting part. Uber was paying a fee per ride (previously $0.30, recently $0.90) which was supposed to go towards providing accessible transit options. This doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to ensure that there are accessible options while not requiring every provider to make those accommodations (which can be very expensive for smaller providers as in order to reliably offer accessible transit you need capable vesicles and always have them spread out over your operating range). It seems that raising/adjusing this fee and using the proceeds to subsidize accessible transit could be a quite efficient way to ensure that this service is available and self-balancing based on the market.

[advisedwang]

As a matter of law though it's a terrible argument.

the BC Human Rights code has a provision "If there is a conflict between this Code and any other enactment, this Code prevails." So unless the taxi fee explicitly says it supersedes the human rights code it explicitly does not.

[kbelder]

What if the other enactment has the same provision?

[advisedwang]

Most parliamentary systems don't allow past law from preventing future laws overriding it. So if a later law clearly says it overrides an earlier law, then it does*. If it's ambiguous, then courts would generally decide (or parliament can write a new law clarifying).

* Unless that country has "tiers" of laws. Often there are classes of laws that are always superior to each other. For example constitutions cannot be overriden by regular laws, regardless of time or clarity. But note that parliaments can generally amend constitutions too, so the equivilant is too conflicting constitutional laws. Some countries also have human rights laws that trump regular laws, and that is in effect what BC has set up with that provision.

[pests]

Theres a temporal component, the later law needs to specify it overrules the earlier. The earlier law can't reference a law that doesn't exist.