The Supreme Court of Canada paves the way for class action lawsuit against Uber
Killian McParland and Jennifer Thompson
In a decision released earlier today, Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller¹, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that an agreement requiring Uber drivers to go to arbitration instead of suing in Court was invalid.
Mr. Heller was a driver for Uber EATS in Toronto. Mr. Heller had to accept Uber’s standard form contract to be able to operate as an Uber driver. There was no opportunity to negotiate. The agreement included an arbitration clause requiring Mr. Heller to resolve any disputes through mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands. The arbitration would cost US$14,500 to initiate, plus any other expenses.
Mr. Heller brought a proposed class action in the Ontario Courts against Uber alleging that he and other drivers are employees of Uber and entitled to the benefits of Ontario’s Employment Standards Act, 2000. Uber relied on the arbitration clause and requested that the action be stayed in favour of arbitration. This was granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, but overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal, which held that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Uber appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The majority of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal and held that (1) in the circumstances, the Court was able to determine the enforceability of the arbitration clause; and (2) that the arbitration clause was unenforceable due to unconscionability.
Jurisdiction to determine the enforceability of arbitration clauses
Where there is an arbitration clause, the Court generally must stay any proceedings unless one of the exceptions under the Ontario Arbitration Act applies. In this case, it was argued that the applicable exception was that the agreement was invalid.
Ordinarily, whether an arbitration clause is valid must first be determined at arbitration (not by the Court) unless (1) it is solely a question of law, or (2) it is a question of mixed law and fact and only a “superficial review” of the facts is required.
However, the majority in Heller held that there is a third exception available where the arbitration clause would impede access to justice: in circumstances where the contract would effectively be “insulated from a meaningful challenge”.²
The test for the new exception is (a) assuming that the pleaded facts are true, there is a genuine challenge to jurisdiction; and (b) there is a real prospect that if a stay is granted, the matter will never be arbitrated.
On the facts, the majority held that due to the nature of the arbitration clause, particularly the substantial cost of arbitrating the matter in the Netherlands, the matter would realistically never be arbitrated. The Court therefore had jurisdiction to review the enforceability of the arbitration clause itself.
Enforceability of the arbitration clause
An arbitration clause can be rendered unenforceable if it is unconscionable. The majority endorsed the existing dual requirements for unconscionability: (1) inequality of bargaining power; and, (2) a resulting improvident bargain.
The majority held that both elements of the test were met in this case. There was inequality of bargaining power due in large part to the standard form contract used meaning Mr. Heller was “powerless to negotiate any of its terms”, and the contract “contain[ed] no information about the costs of mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands.”³ It was improvident because “the mediation and arbitration processes require US$14,500 in up-front administrative fees.” This amount was close to Mr. Heller’s annual income and did not include the potential costs of travel, accommodation, legal representation or lost wages. The costs were therefore disproportionate to the size of an arbitration award that could reasonably have been foreseen when the contract was entered into.
In respect of standard form contracts the majority commented:
The potential for such contracts [standard form contracts] to create an inequality of bargaining power is clear. So too is their potential to enhance the advantage of the stronger party at the expense of the more vulnerable one, particularly through choice of law, forum selection, and arbitration clauses that violate the adhering party’s reasonable expectations by depriving them of remedies. This is precisely the kind of situation in which the unconscionability doctrine is meant to apply.⁴
In light of this decision, those using standard form contracts in non-commercial situations should take care to ensure that the contracts are evenly balanced.
For Mr. Heller, the result of this standard form arbitration clause was that he had no genuine avenue to bring a claim under the agreement:
Effectively, the arbitration clause makes the substantive rights given by the contract unenforceable by a driver against Uber. No reasonable person who had understood and appreciated the implications of the arbitration clause would have agreed to it.⁵
Accordingly, the arbitration clause was found to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable, with the result that Mr. Heller may continue with his class action against Uber.
Other grounds of appeal left unaddressed
Although the Ontario Court of Appeal had found that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable on two grounds, only one of these, unconscionability, was addressed by the majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Unfortunately, the majority declined to answer the question of whether, as the Court of Appeal held, an arbitration clause is also invalid if it does not permit (alleged) employees to pursue an employment standards complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
The dissenting judgment written by Justice Côté would have overturned the finding of the Ontario Court of Appeal on this point.
As a result, employers – particularly those operating outside of Ontario – are left with uncertainty regarding the permissible scope of arbitration agreements with their employees (or contractors who later claim to be employees).
Key takeaway for employers
Employers with arbitration clauses in employee or contractor agreements would be well-advised to review these clauses for compliance with this most recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
¹ 2020 SCC 16.
² At para 39.
³ At para 93.
⁴ At para 89.
⁵ At para 95.
This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Labour and Employment group.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership articles and updates.
Archive
On April 21, 2015, the Nova Scotia government declared that the new Pension Benefits Act (passed in 2011) and new Pension Benefits Regulations will come into effect on June 1, 2015. The new Regulations follow the new Act and draft Regulations summarized in…
Read MoreAn uninsured driver strikes another vehicle, injuring its occupants. These injured persons obtain a settlement from their own motor vehicle insurer (pursuant to Section D of the standard policy), and they assign their action against…
Read MoreThe Editors’ Corner Michelle Black and Sean Kelly Hello! We are very pleased to be the new Atlantic Employers’ Counsel (AEC) editors. We look forward to bringing you what we hope you will find to be interesting…
Read MoreFollowing several Supreme Court of Canada decisions in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the law of constructive dismissal was well defined – or so many thought. The Court’s decision in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal…
Read MoreIn our May 20, 2014 client update, we reported on significant changes affecting automobile insurance in Prince Edward Island, including changes to no-fault benefits available under section B and changes to the damages cap for minor…
Read More2014 LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT ATLANTIC CANADA LEGISLATIVE UPDATE As we move forward in 2015, we know our region’s employers will want to be aware of new legislation that has passed or could soon pass that…
Read MoreOn January 28, 2015, the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance issued a bulletin in Nova Scotia. The 2015 minor injury cap has been set at $8,352, an increase of 1.7 per cent over 2014.…
Read MoreIn preparing for the 2015 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new in the 2015 proxy…
Read MoreDuring the Fall 2014 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Lands Protection Act. The amendments have just been proclaimed and were effective January 1, 2015.…
Read MoreThe Editor’s Corner Clarence Bennett This issue focuses on the family and the interaction between employment and family obligations. As 2014 comes to a close, I would like to extend Seasons Greetings to all of…
Read More