- Parties: The plaintiff was Arthur Lin. The defendants were Uber Canada Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., Uber Portier Canada Inc., Uber Castor Canada Inc. (Uber defendants); Just Order Enterprises Corp.; Fan Tuan Holding Ltd.; and Fantuan Technology Ltd. 

- Subject Matter: Citing s. 7(1) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991, the Uber defendants moved to stay the proposed class proceeding initiated by the plaintiff, a consumer acting as a potential representative plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the proposed class action against all the defendants under s. 36 of the Competition Act, 1985 for alleged breaches of s. 52 relating to misleading representations. The plaintiff opposed the stay motion. They argued that Uber’s user terms and conditions amounted to an adhesion contract and that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. 

- Ruling: The court ruled in the Uber defendants’ favour, granted their stay motion, and stayed the plaintiff’s claims relating to his purchase of the Uber Eats food delivery services in favour of arbitration. The court found the arbitration clause valid under the legal framework governing the contract between the parties, capable of being performed, and not void for reasons of unconscionability. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, any statutory exceptions justifying an exception to the competence-competence principle. 

- Date: The hearing was set on Oct. 17, 2023. The court released its decision on June 24, 2024. 

- Venue: This was a federal case before the Federal Court. 

- Amount: The court awarded no costs as none were sought.