Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sought $200 million in general damages and $50 million in aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages.

• Dispute centered on whether Amazon is a "common employer" of drivers engaged through third-party logistics companies.

• Enforceability of arbitration clauses, some with waivers of appeal rights, was scrutinized under the Uber v. Heller framework.

• Court evaluated whether the claim met the statutory requirements for class certification under Ontario’s Class Proceedings Act.

• Use of the Amazon Flex App was found insufficient to establish class-wide commonality or control.

• The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $50,000 in legal costs to Amazon.

Facts of the case

In Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA 421, Denver Davis initiated a proposed class action lawsuit in Ontario against Amazon Canada and related companies, claiming systemic misclassification of workers. Davis, a former Driver Associate (DA) employed by one of 126 third-party delivery service partners (DSPs), alleged that Amazon was in fact the “common employer” of approximately 73,000 drivers across Canada, which included 16,000 Delivery Partners (DPs) and 57,000 DAs.

The lawsuit sought $250 million in total damages—$200 million in general damages and $50 million in aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages. Davis argued that Amazon circumvented statutory and common law employment obligations by labeling drivers as independent contractors. He also challenged the enforceability of arbitration agreements, some of which included class action waivers and explicit waivers of appeal under s. 7(6) of Ontario’s Arbitration Act, 1991.

Outcome and legal analysis

The motion judge granted a stay of proceedings for all DPs and DAs who signed arbitration agreements and dismissed the motion to certify a class action for the remaining DAs who had not signed such agreements. On appeal, Davis contested the legal conclusions regarding certification and the upholding of the arbitration clauses. He relied in part on Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, a Supreme Court case that set limits on the enforceability of unconscionable arbitration clauses.

The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision. It ruled that Amazon could not be considered a “common employer” of the DAs because there was no sufficient integration or shared control with the DSPs. The logistics companies operated as independent entities, and Amazon’s oversight—primarily through performance standards and use of the Amazon Flex App—did not meet the legal threshold for joint employment. The court emphasized that the class action claim was “plainly and obviously” doomed to fail in this regard.

The Flex App itself, used by all drivers, did not generate a sufficient common issue across class members because its implementation varied widely among the DSPs. The judge noted that some drivers followed the app’s guidance closely, while others did not, and DSPs used and monitored the app differently. Consequently, the proposed class action lacked the uniformity necessary to satisfy the common issues requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court also upheld the enforceability of the arbitration agreements. It found that, unlike in Uber v. Heller, the agreements here did not contain barriers such as inaccessible arbitration forums or excessive costs. The class action and collective arbitration waivers were considered legally valid, and the presence of a s. 7(6) waiver allowed some DAs to bypass the appeal restriction—although this had no bearing on the ultimate outcome.

Given the failure to establish a cause of action, common issues, and a preferable procedure, the Court dismissed the appeal. Davis was ordered to pay $50,000 in costs to Amazon, as previously agreed between the parties.