MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215297465

Arbitration’s Primacy? The Law Pertaining to Staying Court Proceedings in Favour of Arbitration

2019· article· en· W3215297465 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicDispute Resolution and Class Actions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArbitrationSupreme courtAppealLawDispute resolutionArbitration clauseFederal Arbitration ActClass actionPolitical scienceCompulsory arbitrationBusinessLaw and economicsSociologyState (computer science)Computer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For decades, Canadian courts and legislation have followed the international current favouring arbitration as a valid and convenient means of resolving private disputes. One of the key ways courts safeguard the integrity of the arbitral process is through robust stay provisions allowing a party to invoke an arbitration agreement to defeat a court proceeding falling within its scope. The Supreme Court of Canada in TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman and the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. dealt with challenges to motions for a stay of class proceedings in favour of arbitration. Both cases lie at the intersection of arbitration law and class proceedings and deal with whether and to what extent dispute resolution clauses calling for arbitration should be enforced with the effect that the parties are precluded from joining an otherwise certifiable class action. Wellman presents an additional consumer protection twist while Uber injects employment law considerations. In Wellman, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 in favour of enforcing the arbitration clauses in Telus’ contracts with its non-consumer wireless subscribers, forcing them to arbitrate instead of participating in a class action against Telus together with consumer subscribers. In Uber, the Court of Appeal refused to stay a class proceeding outright, finding that the dispute resolution clauses in Uber’s contracts with its drivers were invalid because it was both unconscionable and also an impermissible “contracting out”’ of an employment standard under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. This paper begins with a brief general discussion on Ontario’s arbitration statutes and similar legislation in other provinces with the goal of providing historical and legislative context for the “pro-arbitration” policy framework in which Wellman and Uber were decided. Next, this paper considers the stay provisions in Ontario’s domestic and international arbitration legislation generally before delving into Wellman and Uber to unpack and analyze some of the specific issues at play in those cases. Consistent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada and various courts of appeal champion arbitration as taking precedence over court proceedings, requiring parties to “hold to the course” once entering into an arbitration agreement. The situations in Wellman and Uber put the courts’ commitment to the test.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it