to be determined by a court in Ontario. As the majority in Douez
said, at para. 37:
After all, the strong cause test must ensure that a court’s plenary jurisdic-
tion only yields to private contracts where appropriate.
 It follows from my conclusion on this issue that the mandatory stay provided for in s. 7(1) does not apply. Once the
Arbitration Clause is found to be invalid under s. 7(2), the remedy
of a mandatory stay no longer has any application.
( ii) Unconscionability
 Independent of that first conclusion, I would, in any event,
find the Arbitration Clause to be invalid on the basis of unconscionability. This conclusion would also bring the Arbitration
Clause within the invalidity exception in s. 7(2).
 The motion judge dismissed the unconscionability argument on the basis that there was no evidence that Uber “preyed
or took advantage of Mr. Heller or the other Drivers or extracted
an improvident agreement by inserting an arbitration provision”
(para. 70). The motion judge’s conclusion on this issue is flawed
because, in reaching it, he made palpable and overriding errors of
 Chief among those errors is the motion judge’s finding that
“most grievances or disputes between Drivers and Uber can be
dealt with by the dispute resolution mechanisms readily available
from Ontario and that it will be a substantial dispute that entails
arbitration in the Netherlands” (para. 70).
 What the factual record actually shows is that there is no
dispute resolution mechanism either in Ontario, or elsewhere,
short of the Arbitration Clause. The other avenues available to
a driver, who has a complaint, are located in the Philippines or in
Chicago. Though accessible from Ontario, they are procedures
run by Uber personnel and are completely controlled by Uber.
They are not, in any way, independent grievance or adjudication
 It is also not correct that only a “substantial” dispute
requires arbitration in the Netherlands. To the contrary, all disputes require arbitration in the Netherlands unless the driver
resolves his/her complaint voluntarily with Uber. The reason that
only a substantial dispute would go to arbitration is a direct
result of the financial barriers that the arbitration process erects
which would dissuade drivers with lesser disputes from pursuing
 It was also an error for the motion judge to evaluate the
impact of the Arbitration Clause, in this context, by looking at the