Background: Sepehr Tahmasebpour and Alireza Tahmasebpour sued Freedom Mobile Inc., claiming negligence after an unknown fraudster conducted a SIM swap and accessed Sepehr's Bitcoin account, resulting in a loss of over $63,000. Freedom Mobile argued the dispute was subject to an arbitration clause in their Terms of Service.

Legal Arguments/Issues:

• Arbitration Clause Applicability: Freedom Mobile applied to stay proceedings under the arbitration clause. The plaintiffs contested the clause's applicability, arguing they were not adequately informed of it and questioning its enforceability under Ontario law.
• Consumer Protection: A minor claim involved the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which the plaintiffs argued was not subject to arbitration.
• Unconscionability: The plaintiffs argued the arbitration agreement was unconscionable, citing imbalance in bargaining power and unfair terms that disadvantaged them.

Held: The court granted a stay for the negligence claims, directing those issues to arbitration. It ruled that Freedom Mobile presented an arguable case for arbitration, though not definitively deciding on its applicability. The claim under the Consumer Protection Act was excluded from the stay. The court found no clear evidence of unconscionability on a limited review.

Costs/Awards: Each party bore their own costs as the court declined to award costs to Freedom Mobile, noting the company had not adequately highlighted the arbitration clause to the plaintiffs.