What happened
A Toronto delivery driver brought a proposed class proceeding alleging employment-standards violations. Uber relied on a standard-form clause requiring arbitration in the Netherlands with US$14,500 in upfront administrative and filing fees.
What the Court decided
In **Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16**, the Supreme Court held the clause invalid. A court could decide validity because the cost created a real prospect that the challenge would never reach an arbitrator. The agreement combined unequal bargaining power with an improvident bargain and was unconscionable.
The Court did not decide whether the driver was an employee or whether the class action would succeed.
Binder HR analysis
Dispute-resolution clauses must be practically accessible. Teams should assess filing fees, location, governing rules, language and the realistic value of claims, especially in non-negotiable agreements offered to people with less information and bargaining power.
A clause designed to manage disputes can fail if it effectively prevents them. Employment-standards compliance should be reviewed independently from contract enforcement strategy.
Source: Supreme Court of Canada, **2020 SCC 16**. General information only.