Moreover, the arbitration clause, measured by the surrounding context at the time of the conclusion of the contract, constituted a manifestly reckless agreement, in which the drivers were effectively unable to enforce one of their rights under the broader agreement: simply, NO! I`ve signed out of any new and changed deals that Uber and Lyft have sent me over the past four years, and I`m still active on both platforms as a driver and a passenger. Uber`s agreement clearly states that the opt-out does not result in retaliation from Uber in the form of deactivations. Brown J. agreed that the arbitration agreement was invalid, not because it is ruthless, but because it undermines the rule of law by denying access to justice and, therefore, violating public order. In his view, the non-settlement agreement is equivalent to a non-settlement agreement because it does not provide a method of dispute resolution that is accessible under the law.  According to Brown J., the majority`s decision was an extension of the doctrine of scruples, which was unnecessary and undesirable. Useless because other defined principles apply and undesirable, because enlargement does not offer a valid guideline for their application. Brown J. said the majority`s approach will likely lead to uncertainty about the application of contracts.  Pursuant to the Ontario International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017 (ICAO) and the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 (AA), where a matter is to be arbitrated under an arbitration agreement and a party initiates legal proceedings in the matter, the tribunal must initiate proceedings in favour of arbitration. However, a court may, in certain circumstances, refuse the stay, even if the arbitration agreement is not valid. Abella and Rowe then turned to the arguments of impitoyability, believing that this doctrine was the most appropriate basis for combating the potential injustice engendered by an arbitration clause in a standard contract. While the dominant theory of contract law was that courts should enforce agreements freely negotiated between the parties, the just doctrine of the faculty of scruples facilitates unfair agreements resulting from unequal bargaining power.
. . .