The Futility of Mandatory Arbitration Clauses in Canada: Putting the Last Nail in the Coffin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At issue in the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in Uber Technologies was the ability of platform operators to rely on mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts with platform workers to avoid judicial enforcement of statutory employment rights -in this case, the Ontario Employment Standards Act. The Supreme Court agreed that the clause in question was unconscionable and therefore invalid, but declined to comment on whether it was, in addition, an illegal contracting-out of the Act's provisions. However, the Court's ruling does little to resolve the larger question of what legal space exists for mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts. This paper discusses why such clauses are, by and large, an exercise in futility, and cannot achieve their ostensible purpose of barring access to remedies for violations of statutory employment rights. The author builds on this argument to suggest that there is an underlying principle of public policy that precludes contracting-out of public enforcement mechanisms for protective employment laws in the absence of specific statutory authorization. Examples include the remedial regimes for workers' compensation and human rights claims. It follows that a prohibition against contracting-out of employment standards legislation simply instantiates the broader principle that private agreements cannot lawfully deny access to an administrative remedy to vindicate statutory employment rights. The author urges that what is already implicit in Canadian employment law be made explicit.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".