Supreme Court of Canada finds Uber arbitration clause unconscionable, invalid.
Friday, June 26, 2020 - Filed in: Courts
In 2017, H started a class proceeding against Uber in Ontario for violations of employment standards legislation. Uber brought a motion to stay the class proceeding in favour of arbitration in the Netherlands, relying on the arbitration clause in its services agreement with H. H argued that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and therefore invalid. The motion judge stayed the proceeding, holding that the arbitration agreement’s validity had to be referred to arbitration in the Netherlands, in accordance with the principle that arbitrators are competent to determine their own jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal allowed H’s appeal and set aside the motion judge’s order. It concluded that H’s objections to the arbitration clause did not need to be referred to an arbitrator and could be dealt with by a court in Ontario. It also found the arbitration clause to be unconscionable, based on the inequality of bargaining power between the parties and the improvident cost of arbitration."
The SCC (8:1, with joint reasons by Abella and Rowe JJ., separate concurring reasons by Brown J., and dissenting reasons by Côté J.) dismissed the appeal. Read More...
Supreme Court Confirms That Workplace Safety Can Supersede Freedom Of Religion
Thursday, June 11, 2020 - Filed in: Courts
This decision is now final since, on April 30, 2020, their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed without reasons, as is the norm in such circumstances. Read More...