Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Class ActionCommon Law of EmploymentEmployment RegulationGig WorkOntarioSupreme Court of Canada

SCC: Uber’s Mandatory Arbitration Clause is Unconscionable and Void

by David Doorey June 26, 2020
written by David Doorey June 26, 2020

Written by David Doorey, York University

In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court of Canada today struck a blow against Uber’s “unconscionable” mandatory arbitration clause, ruling it void and unlawful. This is a quick review of the decision. We’ll have more detailed analysis from a variety of contributors, including legal counsel for Mr. Heller, in the days to come.

Here is the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

That arbitration clause purported to require an Uber driver to pursue even small claims in an expensive arbitration proceeding in Amsterdam. The arbitration clause was activated the moment a driver clicked “agree” on the Uber app, which is a requirement to drive for Uber. In order to access the arbitration process, a driver would need to pay $14,500 US, even if the claim was for $100 in unpaid wages.

In an 8-1 ruling in which the majority decision was written by Justice Abella, ex-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and Justice Rowe, the SCC ruled the arbitration clause was “unconscionable”.

Following upon a long line of employment-related decisions spanning nearly two decades now, the SCC once again emphasized how “inequality of bargaining power” colours contract interpretation, especially in the context of work:

“There was clearly inequality of bargaining power between Uber and Mr. Heller. The arbitration agreement was part of a standard form contract. Mr. Heller was powerless to negotiate any of its terms. His only contractual option was to accept or reject it.”

Justices Abella and Rowe, Supreme Court of Canada

The end result is that the arbitration clause was struck as unconscionable, and the Court explains that concept at length. This means that the class action lawsuit filed by Uber drivers alleging violations of the Ontario Employment Standards Act can move forward.

We agree with the Court of Appeal. This is an arbitration agreement that makes it impossible for one party to arbitrate. It is a classic case of unconscionability.

Supreme Court of Canada

The next big test will be whether Uber drivers are “employees” for the purposes of that legislation. Unlike the Labour Relations Act, which expressly includes “dependent contractors” within the definition of “employee”, the ESA makes no mention of this middle category. Nevertheless, the Labour Board has interpreted the legislation broadly, as remedial legislation intended to protect as many workers as possible.

The SCC does not address the other argument made by Heller, which was that mandatory arbitration clauses constitute an unlawful contracting out of employment standards legislation, which provides for an extensive enforcement machinery. The Ontario Court of Appeal addressed that issue at length and ruled that mandatory arbitration clauses that block access to the employment standards machinery amount to an illegal contracting out and are therefore void on that basis. This finding strikes out all arbitration clauses that block access to statutory enforcement machinery, not just those with high access fees in foreign countries.

On this point, the majority state simply:

“Given the conclusion that the arbitration agreement is invalid because it is unconscionable, there is no need to decide whether it is also invalid because it has the effect of contracting out of mandatory protections in the ESA.”

Justices Abella and Rowe, Supreme Court of Canada

The SCC therefore has left the Court of Appeal ruling on this point undisturbed, meaning that it remains the law of the province. In Ontario at least, a mandatory arbitration clause in an employment contract that prevents an employee from filing an statutory claim is illegal.

That is good news for Ontario employees, who have avoided the crisis in U.S. law in which millions of workers are channeled into private arbitration that favours employer interests. It also means that employers can’t use arbitration clauses to avoid class action lawsuits alleging violations of employment standards legislation (which I discussed in this earlier post).

That’s it for now. Watch Canadian Law of Work Forum for more on this case in the coming days. And if you want to write a comment yourself about this case or any other case, email me at ddoorey@yorku.ca

David Doorey, “SCC: Uber’s Mandatory Arbitration Clause is Unconscionable and Void” Canadian Law of Work Forum (June 26 2020): https://lawofwork.ca/?p=12770

0 comment
1
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Can AI Improve Access to Justice? An Employment Law Example
next post
Uber v Heller Affirms Two-Step Unconscionability Test

You may also like

Is “60 the New 50” in Assessing Length...

January 13, 2021

Would Rioting at Canada’s Parliament Building Be Grounds...

January 8, 2021

Canadian Bar Association Podcast: “After the Pandemic: Protecting...

December 17, 2020

Arbitrator: Employees Must Get Swabbed for COVID

December 16, 2020

“Autonomous Worker” Regulation

December 1, 2020

Reflecting on the Use of Neutrality Agreements in...

November 27, 2020

Video: Prof. David Doorey and Lawyer Ryan White...

November 26, 2020

What Could Biden’s Labor Secretary Do?

November 12, 2020

Alberta Government Continues Rollback of Worker Protections

November 10, 2020

Dispatches from Canada on the Big California Uber...

October 23, 2020

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 209 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
13 Jan

New Post: @TheLawofWork asks:

"Is '60 the New 50' in Assessing Length of Reasonable Notice in Wrongful Dismissal Cases?

http://lawofwork.ca/60new50/

#WrongfulDismissal #EmpLaw #LawofWork

Reply on Twitter 1349390367511207939Retweet on Twitter 1349390367511207939Like on Twitter 1349390367511207939Twitter 1349390367511207939
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
8 Jan

Try this again with a working link this time:

New: A fun one to open a new term of Employment Law, by @TheLawofWork:

"Would Rioting at Canada's Parliament Building Be Grounds for Dismissal Without Notice?"

http://lawofwork.ca/?p=13203

Reply on Twitter 1347578258100006914Retweet on Twitter 13475782581000069142Like on Twitter 13475782581000069142Twitter 1347578258100006914
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
4 Jan

Some thoughts on how Canadian labor law would deal with Google employees who joined @AlphabetWorkers (or something like it) in Canada. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1346114537351766017

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

First post of 2021 looks at a story in the @nytimes today about a new minority union at @Google. Prof. David Doorey (@TheLawofWork) asks:

"What is a Minority Union?"

http://lawofwork.ca

Reply on Twitter 1346215770561392641Retweet on Twitter 13462157705613926413Like on Twitter 13462157705613926414Twitter 1346215770561392641
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.