Hamilton has always been known as a tough city that didn't shrink from a fight. But in recent months, city hall seems to have turned particularly feisty.

The city is currently duking it out, David-and-Goliath style, with several large organizations. Charging Uber drivers this week makes the worldwide ride-sharing company the latest big and powerful organization to get a kick in the ankles from Hamilton. From battles with Bell Canada to taking Canada Post to appeals court, 2015 is turning into the year of Hamilton versus everyone.

It's not on purpose, said Mayor Fred Eisenberger.

"I don't think Hamilton is looking to fight with everybody," he said. "I think Hamilton is interested in looking after the interests of our taxpayers."

Here are some of Hamilton's ongoing battles:

Hamilton versus Bell Canada

The city says it's upset over shoddy work the corporation has done here, including wires duct taped to sidewalks.

I always thought it was a little rich to be asking the federal government for help and at the same time suing them. - Mayor Fred Eisenberger

In January, city lawyers applied to the CRTC to get a new memorandum of access agreement (MAA), which would give Hamilton more control over work Bell Canada does on its right of ways. If the CRTC rules in the city's favour, the city can dictate that the work be done to its standards.

Hamilton versus Canada Post

The city is taking on Canada Post in a landmark court case over the installation of super mailboxes.

Council passed a bylaw earlier this year saying that Canada Post had to consult with city staff — and pay a fee — before installing a community mailbox. The city argued that it can do this because it has control over its own right of ways. The corporation said its federal mandate trumps municipal law, and continued installing the boxes anyway.

A lower court judge ruled against Hamilton earlier this year. Now the city has asked 95 other municipalities for help with the $75,000 appeal. So far, the city has received just over $3,000.

Hamilton versus Uber

Hamilton isn't the only city to talk tough when it comes to Uber. Earlier this year, it warned that the company had to comply with the city's taxi bylaw or face prosecution.

In July, the company launched its Hamilton service. Earlier this week, the city charged eight drivers with 23 violations, including operating as a taxicab driver with no licence and operating a vehicle not approved for use as a taxi.

Hamilton versus the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority

OK, the NPCA isn't a giant, but the city is still fighting with it.

The city is contesting a new levy that will cost local taxpayers nearly $1 million more per year. The NPCA claims that for years, Hamilton has been paying too little.

The city has refused to pay the new levy, instead appealing to the province's Lands and Mines Commissioner. It has also wants the province to take over the temporary operation of the NPCA.

The commission says Hamilton and the NPCA have agreed to mediation. NPCA wants Haldimand and Niagara present at the hearing as well, and Niagara is debating whether to agree to mediation. If all parties agree, it will likely happen sometime in October.

Hamilton versus the payday-loan industry

Matthew Green, Ward 3 councillor, has issued a public battle cry against payday loan and cheque-cashing places, saying they're predatory businesses who prey on Hamilton's most vulnerable.

Wednesday, council unanimously approved Green's motion asking the province for the power to license payday loan operations, as well as to regulate where they're located.

He's also working with local financial planners, credit unions and other organizations to come up with alternatives. If he had his way, he'd like to see payday loan and cheque-cashing places banned.

Hamilton versus the federal government

This one is over, but it lasted 12 years and cost at least $6 million in legal costs, and it only ended this year.

In 2003, the city sued the feds over issues related to the Red Hill Valley Parkway. In the $75-million suit, the city alleged that 46 federal government employees acted in bad faith by applying the Environmental Assessment Act to the project, delaying construction.

The city hired lawyer David Estrin, who for years assured councillors the city had a shot at winning.

In July, the city dropped the lawsuit. But councillors argue that it paid off. The lawsuit was dropped partially in exchange for a piece of federally owned waterfront land currently home to the Marine Discovery Centre.

"The legal part of this did very well and the municipal and the federal governments did not," said Eisenberger.

"I always thought it was a little rich to be asking the federal government for help and at the same time suing them."