Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 JUNE 2020

Dutch Forum Clause Does Not Amount To Much: Supreme Court Says That Uber Arbitration Clause Is Unconscionable

MLT Aikins LLP
MLT Aikins LLP
Contributor
MLT Aikins LLP

MLT Aikins LLP

FIRM OVERVIEW MLT Aikins is a full-service business law firm of more than 375 lawyers with a deep...

View firm profile
Explore more from MLT Aikins LLP

In a much-anticipated decision released on June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada has changed the law with respect to the doctrine of unconscionability.

CanadaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In a much-anticipated decision released on June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada has changed the law with respect to the doctrine of unconscionability. By doing so this has allowed a proposed class action lawsuit by Uber and UberEATS drivers to proceed.

There will undoubtedly be ramifications to the way consumer contracts are interpreted in Canadian courts moving forward particularly with respect to arbitration clauses and forum selection clauses. Further, this paves the way for other potential legal challenges made by "gig economy" contract workers with respect to employment standards.

Background

The nominal plaintiff of the proposed class, David Heller, was an UberEATS delivery driver who had entered into a 15-page UberEATS driver services agreement with an Uber affiliate by clicking yes to confirm acceptance on his mobile device. The services agreement contained a commercial arbitration clause providing that any disputes are to be resolved pursuant to

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from