Mr. Heller argued that the compromise clause was not applicable. The AA, not the ICAA, blames the agreement between the parties, Heller said, arguing that the civil courts had jurisdiction to examine the validity of the compromise clause, since the interaction between that clause and esa is a simple matter of law. Similarly, in this case, the issue of the unacceptable could be resolved by a cursory examination of the evidence. As a result, the courts were not required to leave the issue of jurisdiction to the arbitrator. The Court of Appeal correctly held that the compromise clause constituted an illegal attribution of ESA, since the clause was intended to prevent workers from imposing minimum employment standards through the procedures provided for by the legislation. The Court of Appeal`s finding that the clause is unacceptable is also, given the grossly unfair requirement that drivers in the Netherlands pursue an arbitration procedure whose ex ante costs (US$14,500) are disproportionate to the value of potential claims. In addition, it should be concluded that Uber knew that the agreement was one-sided, which allowed it to take advantage of its superior position vis-à-vis drivers. On January 19, 2017, Heller launched a class-action lawsuit against Uber on behalf of Uber drivers in Ontario, including a statement that Uber drivers would be denied ESA benefits and $400 million in damages for the class. But before the group action was upheld by the courts – a necessary step in the proceedings on the merits – Uber sought an order that allowed the hellers` group action to stand up in favour of arbitration proceedings in the Netherlands. In a january 30, 2018, 2018 ONSC 718 (CanLII) decision, reported in Lancaster`s Employment Standards Law, July 12, 2018, eAlert No. 116, Ontario Superior Court Judge Paul Perell granted Uber`s request and stayed the class proceedings. He noted that it was well established that courts were required to enforce arbitration agreements where there is no legislative language indicating contrary intent and esa does not restrict the ability of parties to resolve disputes through arbitration.
Mr. Perell also rejected Mr. Heller`s argument that the compromise clause was unacceptable, not least because most potential disputes between Uber and its drivers could be resolved through “readily available” mechanisms in Ontario, with only the most essential litigation in the Netherlands requiring arbitration. Under the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA) and the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 (AA), where a case is to be tried under an arbitration agreement and a party initiates legal proceedings in this matter, the court must suspend the arbitration proceedings. However, a court may, in certain circumstances, refuse to grant a residence permit, even if the arbitration agreement is invalid. Uber runs a global business and is a provider of “lead generation services” in the form of software applications for GPS-enabled smartphones that it sells to transportation providers. Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Canada, Inc., Uber B.V., Raser Operations B.V. and Uber Portier B.V. are part of a group of companies known collectively and individually as Uber.