International Arbitration Agreements in Canada Post-Uber

IF 0.4 Q3 LAW
Tamar Meshel
{"title":"International Arbitration Agreements in Canada Post-Uber","authors":"Tamar Meshel","doi":"10.54648/joia2023017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Uber v. Heller – a case involving an employment class action subject to an international arbitration agreement – the Supreme Court of Canada decided three issues that threatened to undermine the enforceability of international arbitration agreements in Canada. The Court: (1) read the scope of the Canadian International Commercial Arbitration Acts narrowly; (2) created an exception to the competence-competence principle; and (3) relaxed the test for invalidating arbitration agreements on unconscionability grounds. At the same time, Uber was decided in a highly specific factual context and its ultimate impact on the enforcement of international arbitration agreements was largely left to be determined by lower courts in future cases. This article examines two such cases involving consumer class actions subject to international arbitration agreements. The article analyses the courts’ application of Uber and its effect on their reasoning and on the outcome of these cases. While it is difficult to predict how Uber will unfold in the lower courts over time, the two cases examined in this article suggest that Uber is unlikely to affect the enforcement of most international arbitration agreements in the context of consumer class actions – perhaps the context most akin to that of Uber – let alone in more traditional commercial contexts.\nCanada, international arbitration agreements, commercial, Uber v. Heller, employment, consumer, class action, enforcement","PeriodicalId":43527,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Arbitration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Arbitration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2023017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Uber v. Heller – a case involving an employment class action subject to an international arbitration agreement – the Supreme Court of Canada decided three issues that threatened to undermine the enforceability of international arbitration agreements in Canada. The Court: (1) read the scope of the Canadian International Commercial Arbitration Acts narrowly; (2) created an exception to the competence-competence principle; and (3) relaxed the test for invalidating arbitration agreements on unconscionability grounds. At the same time, Uber was decided in a highly specific factual context and its ultimate impact on the enforcement of international arbitration agreements was largely left to be determined by lower courts in future cases. This article examines two such cases involving consumer class actions subject to international arbitration agreements. The article analyses the courts’ application of Uber and its effect on their reasoning and on the outcome of these cases. While it is difficult to predict how Uber will unfold in the lower courts over time, the two cases examined in this article suggest that Uber is unlikely to affect the enforcement of most international arbitration agreements in the context of consumer class actions – perhaps the context most akin to that of Uber – let alone in more traditional commercial contexts. Canada, international arbitration agreements, commercial, Uber v. Heller, employment, consumer, class action, enforcement
后uber时代的加拿大国际仲裁协议
在优步诉海勒案(Uber v.Heller)中,加拿大最高法院裁定了三个可能破坏国际仲裁协议在加拿大可执行性的问题。法院:(1)狭义解读《加拿大国际商事仲裁法》的范围;(2) 为能力-能力原则创造了一个例外;以及(3)放宽了以不合情理为由使仲裁协议无效的标准。与此同时,优步是在一个高度具体的事实背景下作出裁决的,其对国际仲裁协议执行的最终影响在很大程度上由下级法院在未来的案件中决定。本文审查了两起涉及受国际仲裁协议约束的消费者集体诉讼的此类案件。本文分析了法院对优步的适用及其对其推理和案件结果的影响。虽然很难预测优步将如何在下级法院随着时间的推移展开,但本文审查的两个案件表明,优步不太可能在消费者集体诉讼的背景下影响大多数国际仲裁协议的执行,更不用说在更传统的商业背景下了。加拿大,国际仲裁协议,商业,优步诉海勒,就业,消费者,集体诉讼,强制执行
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Since its 1984 launch, the Journal of International Arbitration has established itself as a thought provoking, ground breaking journal aimed at the specific requirements of those involved in international arbitration. Each issue contains in depth investigations of the most important current issues in international arbitration, focusing on business, investment, and economic disputes between private corporations, State controlled entities, and States. The new Notes and Current Developments sections contain concise and critical commentary on new developments. The journal’s worldwide coverage and bimonthly circulation give it even more immediacy as a forum for original thinking, penetrating analysis and lively discussion of international arbitration issues from around the globe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信