Arbitration’s Primacy? The Law Pertaining to Staying Court Proceedings in Favour of Arbitration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".