A final hearing about a taxi services firm allegedly discriminating against a man with a guide dog will proceed after the company tried to have it thrown out and to pin it solely on a driver.
Craig Cornwall has accused Aerial Capital Group, trading as Canberra Elite Taxis, of discriminating against him because of his disability after he tried to enter a taxi with his registered guide dog in February 2021 only for the driver to say "no dog".
A recent ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal publication states that Mr Cornwall initially asked the driver if he should sit in the back due to COVID before receiving the negative answer.
Despite Mr Cornwall repeatedly saying it was a guide dog and that it was illegal to refuse him service, the driver kept refusing entry during the incident in Civic.
Mr Cornwall then went to another taxi and that driver accepted him and his dog.
He later contacted the taxi company via its online feedback form but received no response and complained that it was allegedly the second time he and his dog had been refused service.
In his complaint, he said the refusal left him feeling humiliated and that the delay caused him to miss an appointment.
He also said he spent about $100 in additional taxi and Uber fares and missed an hour of work.
The lack of response to his feedback caused him to be more stressed and upset, he said.
Mr Cornwall initially lodged a complaint with the ACT Human Rights Commission before it was referred to the tribunal after he and the company could not agree during a conciliation that the commission had arranged.
In the recent tribunal judgment, the company conceded that the incident occurred but said it had no liability under the Discrimination Act because it should be only the driver being subjected to the legal proceedings instead.
The company, represented by its CEO David Lawless, applied for the tribunal to dismiss the case without a hearing.
It said it provides booking services for taxi operators and their drivers rather than being a taxi service itself and that the alleged discrimination occurred in the latter context because it was a "street hail" by Mr Cornwall.
It also said that because it did not employ the driver, he could not be a company representative or agent.
As part of an agreement between the company and drivers, the former trains the latter related to unlawful discrimination that includes the obligation to take passengers with guide dogs.
Mr Cornwall, representing himself, said he recognised the corporate structure of the company and that it was a booking service rather than a taxi operator.
However, among his arguments, he said that a "reasonable interpretation" of how those services are provided was the main point and that the services were linked.
Mr Cornwall also took aim at the training agreement between the company and drivers, saying it reflected the company being "in the driver's seat" because it is taking or assuming responsibility for drivers.
Mr Cornwall said the driver was a company agent because of the training agreement, the driver operating a vehicle with the company branding, and the driver generating income for the company's booking service.
Tribunal member Walter Hawkins said that while it was clear the company had not enter any formal or contractual relationship with the driver for him to be their agent, "there is an arguable case" that the driver may have been an agent.
Mr Hawkins said that due to that potential agency, an arguable case also existed in relation to the company not taking all reasonable steps to prevent the alleged discrimination.
The matter was listed for further directions.
