The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
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 Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a 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

Will There Be a Strike at York?

March 11, 2022

Reforming Non-Compete Law: A Cross Border Perspective

March 3, 2022

The Problem With Ontario’s Proposed Gig Worker Law...

February 28, 2022

Can Human Rights Law Help Workers Fired for...

February 18, 2022

Will Conservatives Add “Vaccine Status” to Human Rights...

February 9, 2022

Is UFCW’s Mysterious “Agreement” With Uber Lawful?

January 27, 2022

Would the Recommendations in Ontario’s New Report on...

December 10, 2021

The New European Platform Work Directive Through a...

December 9, 2021

Why Canadian Employers Do Not ‘Permanently” Replace Strikers

December 8, 2021

Why is Alberta Making Workplaces Less Safe? Alberta...

December 1, 2021

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 334 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
44m

Yet another reason to not shop at Walmart

kira 👾@kirawontmiss

bro terrorized everybody in walmart

Reply on Twitter 1540041918565998594Retweet on Twitter 1540041918565998594Like on Twitter 15400419185659985942Twitter 1540041918565998594
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
2h

lol. Classic.

I was told by a Saskatchewan arbitrator that he wasn’t interested in arguments about how similar statutory language is interpreted ‘out east’. Because they do things their own way in Saskatchewan.

Eric Sherkin@ericsherkin

@TheLawofWork I was a 1st yr associate arguing a motion in Guelph on short notice (partner on the file was speaking at a conference and didn't want to miss it) and being told by the judge that "I know how things are in Toronto, but sharp practice stops when you cross the Humber River."

Reply on Twitter 1540016476551274497Retweet on Twitter 1540016476551274497Like on Twitter 15400164765512744971Twitter 1540016476551274497
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
2h

America is a shit show.

Seth Moulton@sethmoulton

Just so everyone knows, these are the states - including Massachusetts - that had one of their gun laws overturned today.

Reply on Twitter 1540015350363865088Retweet on Twitter 1540015350363865088Like on Twitter 15400153503638650882Twitter 1540015350363865088
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Freedom of Association
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.