The trial judge decided that he did not have the power to decide whether the arbitration agreement was valid and decided that that decision was to be determined by the arbitrator at trial. According to the motions judge, the case was a high-order dispute over a commercial licensing agreement under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, about 2 percent (“ICAA”).  Moreover, the compromise clause, which was judged at the time of the parties` entry into contract on the basis of the surrounding context, was a clearly irreplaceable windfall, in which drivers were virtually unable to assert any of their rights under the broader agreement: simply, NO! I have opposed any new modified Uber and Lyft agreements have sent my way over the past four years and I am still active on both platforms as a driver and as a passenger. Uber`s agreement makes it clear that an opt-out did not result in retaliation from Uber in the form of a deactivation. Brown J. agreed that the arbitration agreement was not valid, not because it is unacceptable, but because it undermines the rule of law by denying access to justice and thus violating public order. According to him, the agreement boils down to a non-mediation agreement because it does not offer an accessible method of dispute resolution.  According to Brown J., the majority`s decision was an extension of the doctrine of scrupulability, which was unnecessary and undesirable. Unnecessary because other defined principles apply, and undesirable because enlargement offers no reasonable indication of its application. Brown J.
said the majority approach would likely create uncertainty in the application of treaties.  Binding arbitration agreements were formalized in 1925, this has allowed two companies of roughly equal size to settle their disputes outside the courtroom, saving both parties a lot of money and time, but since then, the main objective of arbitration has been to compel employees, clients, patients and other relatively fragile parties to waive their right of appeal (or cooperation) as a condition of entry. Get to work. , looking for care, or just driving for Uber. Instead, persons crammed into binding agreements are obliged to argue their cases successively in a privatized courtroom, where the arbitrator (usually a former judge) is often a contractor for the company whose conduct has given rise to the complaint.