Newly released documents have revealed the extent of Uber lobbying in Halifax, showing that a private meeting with the mayor preceded a pivotal council decision to delay increased oversight of ride-hailing drivers.
The documents, obtained via a formal request under provincial freedom-of-information laws, detail a concerted effort by the San Francisco-based tech giant to maintain the current regulatory framework regarding driver background checks. The records include a presentation delivered to Halifax Mayor Andy Fillmore by an Uber lobbyist just one day before the mayor successfully moved to postpone a vote on stricter safety protocols.
At the heart of the dispute is a discrepancy in how drivers are vetted. While traditional taxi and limousine drivers must submit their background check results directly to the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) for official review, ride-hailing drivers currently undergo internal reviews conducted by their respective companies.
A Meeting Behind Closed Doors
According to the 40-page cache of documents, Uber Canada public affairs manager Jonathan Hamel met with Mayor Fillmore on Jan. 12. During this meeting, Hamel reportedly delivered a presentation urging the mayor to oppose proposed bylaw changes that would align the screening processes for ride-hailing drivers with those of the taxi industry.
The documents also reveal a series of communications between Hamel and senior staff in the mayor’s office. Emails exchanged between October and November 2025 show Hamel engaging with policy advisers as the council prepared to debate a staff report recommending modernized oversight. In one email sent on Nov. 19, 2025, Hamel argued that Halifax’s existing bylaws already provided sufficient enforcement powers and that maintaining the status quo was the most “balanced and modern approach.”
Because Halifax does not maintain a formal lobbyist registry, these interactions remained shielded from public view. The lack of a registry means that such meetings and the correspondence surrounding them would only come to light through specific legal requests, leaving a gap in the transparency of how municipal policy is shaped by private interests.
The Discrepancy in Driver Screening
The tension in Halifax centers on the level of municipal control over driver safety. The proposed amendments sought to bridge a gap where the municipality currently relies on the “honor system” of corporate internal reviews for ride-hailing companies. Under the proposed rules, the HRM would have direct access to criminal record checks, child abuse allegations, and specialized police checks for those working with vulnerable populations.
The following table outlines the differences in oversight identified in the municipal staff report:
| Feature | Taxi & Limo Drivers | Ride-Hailing Drivers (Current) |
|---|---|---|
| Review Authority | Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) | Private Company (Internal) |
| Data Submission | Mandatory submission of all results | Handled via company-managed checks |
| Scope of Checks | Criminal, Child Abuse, Vulnerable People | Criminal, Child Abuse, Vulnerable People |
While Uber has argued that municipal officials possess the authority to request these checks under existing data-sharing agreements, the region’s licensing manager, Steven Berkman, informed council in January that staff had never actually submitted such a request. When asked why, Berkman stated he was unaware of the reason.
A Motion That Mirrored Corporate Strategy
The documents suggest that Uber’s influence may have extended directly into the language used in municipal motions. On Jan. 26, one day before a scheduled council meeting, Uber spokeswoman Keerthan Rang issued a statement endorsing the mayor’s proposal to appoint a committee to study the issue. The statement suggested the group should “review HRM’s public policy objectives against the best practices from across Canada, with a particular focus on training, audit and compliance models used by municipal and provincial regulators.”
When Mayor Fillmore introduced his motion to shelve the changes and appoint this very committee on Jan. 27, the wording was nearly identical to the statement provided by Uber. The motion was subsequently approved by the council.
Mayor Fillmore’s office declined requests for an interview regarding the similarities between the corporate statement and the official motion. A spokesperson for the mayor, Ryan Nearing, released a statement noting that the mayor regularly meets with various stakeholders, including the taxi industry and transportation companies, and maintained that the mayor’s position on safety has remained consistent.
However, not all councillors were convinced by the delay. Councillor Sam Austin, who was among the two who voted against the motion, noted that Uber’s outreach was highly organized compared to the local taxi industry. Austin expressed concern that the initial entry of ridesharing into the Halifax market in 2020 lacked sufficient scrutiny, stating that the city “allowed them to come in while we tied up the local taxi industry’s ability to compete.”
Global Scrutiny and Local Impact
The push for tighter oversight in Halifax comes at a precarious time for Uber globally. The company is currently navigating intense scrutiny in the United States, where it faces multiple class action lawsuits involving allegations of sexual assault and harassment.
A report by the New York Times highlighted that between 2017 and 2022, Uber received reports of sexual misconduct or sexual assault approximately every eight minutes on average across the U.S., totaling over 400,000 complaints. The report also noted that while Uber has tested safety tools—such as mandatory video recording—the company has sometimes delayed or failed to require their use.
In response to these global concerns, Uber Canada has maintained that safety is a “core value.” Keerthan Rang stated that the vast majority of trips are completed without incident and emphasized that the company continues to develop technologies like GPS tracking and the RideCheck service to enhance passenger security.
For Halifax, the next step rests with the newly appointed committee. The group is tasked with reviewing municipal policy against Canadian best practices, a process that will ultimately determine whether the city moves toward direct oversight or maintains the current corporate-led model.
If you have information regarding municipal transparency or transportation policy, we invite you to share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments below.
