优步诉海勒案后加拿大国际商事仲裁

Tamar Meshel
{"title":"优步诉海勒案后加拿大国际商事仲裁","authors":"Tamar Meshel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3646573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller from an international commercial arbitration perspective, focusing on two specific issues. The first issue is the Court’s application of a provincial domestic, rather than international, arbitration statute to Uber and Heller’s international arbitration agreement, on the ground that the agreement is not “commercial”. The article argues that this finding is not in line with international arbitration instruments and practice. The second issue is the Court’s interpretation and application of the competence-competence principle, which permits arbitral tribunals to decide their own jurisdiction. The article maintains that the Court’s approach does not offend this principle, but that the Court provides insufficient guidance to lower Canadian courts on how to implement this approach in future cases. The article concludes that the Court’s decision, while far-reaching in many respects, should not disturb the enforcement of routine international commercial arbitration agreements in Canada. The decision may have implications, however, for arbitration agreements contained in international contracts – particularly standard form contracts – that might give rise to employment disputes, such as those in the gig economy, or that contain terms that may seem to bar a party’s access to the arbitral process.","PeriodicalId":405630,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Contract Litigation","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"International Commercial Arbitration In Canada After Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller\",\"authors\":\"Tamar Meshel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3646573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller from an international commercial arbitration perspective, focusing on two specific issues. The first issue is the Court’s application of a provincial domestic, rather than international, arbitration statute to Uber and Heller’s international arbitration agreement, on the ground that the agreement is not “commercial”. The article argues that this finding is not in line with international arbitration instruments and practice. The second issue is the Court’s interpretation and application of the competence-competence principle, which permits arbitral tribunals to decide their own jurisdiction. The article maintains that the Court’s approach does not offend this principle, but that the Court provides insufficient guidance to lower Canadian courts on how to implement this approach in future cases. The article concludes that the Court’s decision, while far-reaching in many respects, should not disturb the enforcement of routine international commercial arbitration agreements in Canada. The decision may have implications, however, for arbitration agreements contained in international contracts – particularly standard form contracts – that might give rise to employment disputes, such as those in the gig economy, or that contain terms that may seem to bar a party’s access to the arbitral process.\",\"PeriodicalId\":405630,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Contract Litigation\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Contract Litigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3646573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Contract Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3646573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从国际商事仲裁的角度考察了加拿大最高法院对优步技术公司诉海勒案的判决,重点关注两个具体问题。第一个问题是法院以优步和海勒的国际仲裁协议不属于“商业”为理由,将省级国内仲裁法而非国际仲裁法适用于优步和海勒的国际仲裁协议。文章认为,这一发现不符合国际仲裁文书和实践。第二个问题是法院对管辖权-管辖权原则的解释和适用,该原则允许仲裁法庭决定自己的管辖权。该条坚持认为,法院的做法没有违反这一原则,但法院没有就如何在今后的案件中执行这一做法向加拿大下级法院提供足够的指导。该条的结论是,法院的裁决虽然在许多方面影响深远,但不应妨碍在加拿大执行常规的国际商事仲裁协议。然而,这一决定可能会对国际合同中包含的仲裁协议产生影响,特别是标准形式的合同,这些合同可能会引起就业纠纷,例如零工经济中的合同,或者包含可能阻止一方进入仲裁程序的条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
International Commercial Arbitration In Canada After Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller
This article examines the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller from an international commercial arbitration perspective, focusing on two specific issues. The first issue is the Court’s application of a provincial domestic, rather than international, arbitration statute to Uber and Heller’s international arbitration agreement, on the ground that the agreement is not “commercial”. The article argues that this finding is not in line with international arbitration instruments and practice. The second issue is the Court’s interpretation and application of the competence-competence principle, which permits arbitral tribunals to decide their own jurisdiction. The article maintains that the Court’s approach does not offend this principle, but that the Court provides insufficient guidance to lower Canadian courts on how to implement this approach in future cases. The article concludes that the Court’s decision, while far-reaching in many respects, should not disturb the enforcement of routine international commercial arbitration agreements in Canada. The decision may have implications, however, for arbitration agreements contained in international contracts – particularly standard form contracts – that might give rise to employment disputes, such as those in the gig economy, or that contain terms that may seem to bar a party’s access to the arbitral process.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信