Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Opposability of Uber’s Delivery Services Agreement and its arbitration clause to a Quebec Uber Eats courier who sues only Société Uber Canada, a distinct corporate entity.
• Sufficiency of evidence proving that the courier electronically accepted a specific version of the Uber arbitration clause and that it governed the parties’ relationship in 2019–2025.
• Interaction between article 622 C.p.c. (mandatory referral to arbitration) and the court’s power to refuse referral where the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement is not established.
• Impact of Supreme Court jurisprudence (notably Uber v. Heller) and Quebec appellate case law on when courts may examine arbitration clauses more closely, despite the competence-competence principle.
• Allegations that Uber’s contractual model is a contract of adhesion with abusive terms, including unilateral modification of delivery remuneration and mandatory arbitration.
• Request for punitive damages for alleged abuse of procedure by Société Uber Canada in invoking arbitration, deferred to be determined with the merits of the wage and damages claim.

Factual background

Ali Gholampour worked as a delivery driver using the Uber Eats platform from 2019 until 13 April 2025. He alleges that Société Uber Canada operates a food delivery service through its Uber Eats application, which matches consumers ordering prepared meals with nearby couriers, including himself. According to his pleading, Uber Canada compensated him based on distance travelled and the period of peak demand. Over time, he claims that both his per-kilometre rate and various bonuses were reduced or eliminated without his free and informed consent. Between 2022 and 2024, Gholampour asserts that his per-kilometre rate fell from 3.50 $ to 0.82 $, resulting in alleged unpaid wages totalling 25,718.91 $. He also claims unpaid vacation pay (8,212.50 $) and additional sums for stress, financial hardship, loss of enjoyment of life, and punitive damages linked to what he characterizes as bad-faith, unilateral changes to his working conditions. Altogether, his main claim against Société Uber Canada seeks approximately 73,931.41 $ in damages. In parallel, he files an amended motion alleging that Uber Canada’s conduct in the litigation, particularly its reliance on an arbitration clause, constitutes an abuse of procedure, for which he claims an additional 74,900 $ in punitive damages.

Procedural history

The claim was instituted in May 2025 and served on Société Uber Canada around 20 May 2025. Uber Canada did not initially respond within the prescribed time, leading the plaintiff to seek inscription for judgment by default in early June. Shortly before the scheduled date for default judgment, Uber Canada appeared, filed a response, and asked to be relieved from default. The Court of Québec granted that request, struck the default inscription, and extended the time limit in article 622 C.p.c. to allow Uber Canada to bring a motion for referral to arbitration within 15 days. On or about 15 July 2025, Société Uber Canada filed its motion asking the Court to decline jurisdiction ratione materiae and to refer the parties to arbitration, invoking articles 35, 167 and 622 C.p.c. In response, Gholampour not only opposed the referral but amended his abuse-of-procedure motion, arguing that Uber’s insistence on arbitration formed part of a broader pattern of oppressive contractual and procedural behaviour. The present judgment of the Court of Québec (Civil Chamber – Practice Division) deals solely with Uber Canada’s request to refer the dispute to arbitration and with the procedural fate of the plaintiff’s abuse-of-procedure motion.

The arbitration clause and policy terms

Société Uber Canada relied on a standard-form contract titled “Convention de Services de livraison (Uber Eats – Canada)” dated 1 July 2021. That agreement, according to Uber Canada, governs the relationship between delivery drivers and Uber Portier Canada Inc. (“Uber”) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (“UTI”). The contract characterizes the driver as an independent contractor and includes an “Obligation d’arbitrage” section. Clause 15 provides that all disputes arising out of the agreement or any related legal relationship must be resolved by final and binding arbitration, on an individual basis, under the Arbitration Rules of the ADR Institute of Canada / Institut d’arbitrage et de médiation du Canada. The clause also contains a prominent waiver of participation in class actions or collective proceedings, with drivers agreeing to pursue only individual arbitration claims. Importantly, clause 15.6 states that acceptance of the arbitration clause is not a mandatory condition of the contractual relationship. Drivers can opt out of arbitration by sending an email within 30 days of electronically accepting the agreement, identifying themselves and stating their intention to opt out, using the email address linked to their driver account. The contract defines “Uber” and “UTI” as specific corporate entities and refers to “Membres du groupe” as affiliates under common control. However, Société Uber Canada, the named defendant in this action, does not appear by name in the text of the agreement placed before the court, and the judgment notes that Uber Canada is a distinct legal person under Quebec corporate records.

Legal framework on arbitration and access to justice

The court situates the case within Quebec’s post-reform procedural framework, where private modes of dispute resolution, including arbitration, are encouraged and recognised in articles 1, 620 and 622 C.p.c. Arbitration is defined as a process in which an arbitrator decides a dispute according to law and contract, and article 622 establishes that judicial courts must, on request, refer disputes covered by an arbitration agreement to arbitration unless the court finds the arbitration agreement null. The judgment canvasses key Supreme Court of Canada and Quebec appellate decisions: Dell, Rogers, Seidel, Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, and more recent Quebec Court of Appeal decisions such as Cannatechnologie, Gifran, and Hydro-Québec. These authorities reaffirm the competence-competence principle, under which arbitrators normally decide their own jurisdiction first. At the same time, they clarify important exceptions where a court may itself determine the applicability or validity of an arbitration clause, especially when only a question of law is at stake or when a mixed question can be resolved on a superficial review of the documentary record. Uber v. Heller is highlighted as having broadened the space for judicial scrutiny of arbitration clauses in contracts of adhesion, particularly where there is significant inequality of bargaining power and serious concerns about access to justice. The judgment also references commentary emphasizing that drafters must avoid clauses that create “surprises” or iniquitous burdens for weaker parties and notes Quebec-specific considerations such as article 3149 C.c.Q. and article 1437 C.c.Q. on abusive clauses in contracts of adhesion and consumer contracts.

Court’s analysis on opposability and evidence

The central question for the Court of Québec is whether the arbitration clause contained in the Delivery Services Agreement is actually opposable to Ali Gholampour and whether this suffices to trigger the mandatory referral under article 622 C.p.c. The court begins by emphasizing that Société Uber Canada is a separate corporation from Uber Portier Canada Inc. and Uber Technologies, Inc., as demonstrated by the Quebec enterprise register. The contract produced by the defence names only Uber and UTI as parties to the agreement with the driver; Société Uber Canada is absent from the text, and Uber and UTI are not defendants in this action. The court then scrutinizes the evidentiary record supporting Uber Canada’s position. Uber Canada argues that the plaintiff must have accepted some version of the Delivery Services Agreement in order to access and use the Uber Eats platform as a courier from 2019 onward, and that by this very fact he is bound by the arbitration clause. However, the defence does not file any concrete evidence—such as logs, screenshots, acceptance records, or a dated click-through confirmation—showing when, if ever, Gholampour accepted a particular version of the agreement or its arbitration clause. Nor does it show that Uber Canada itself is a “member of the group” within the meaning of the definitions in the contract, or explain how exactly the corporate chain links Uber Canada, Uber Portier Canada Inc., UTI, and the plaintiff as contracting parties. The plaintiff’s own amended motion (alleging that he was periodically forced via text messages to accept new contractual terms, including arbitration clauses, under economic pressure to keep working) does not cure the evidentiary gaps, because it does not identify a specific version, date, or proof of acceptance of the 2021 agreement filed as exhibit D-1. Given this record, the court refuses to assume, speculate, or infer that a contract containing the arbitration clause came into force between the plaintiff and the defendant at an identifiable date. It holds that the burden rested on Société Uber Canada to demonstrate that the arbitration clause it invokes is part of a binding agreement opposable to the plaintiff in this litigation, and that this minimum evidentiary threshold under article 622 C.p.c. has not been met.

Outcome and implications

Having concluded that the defence has not shown, even on a prima facie basis, that the Delivery Services Agreement (and its arbitration clause) is opposable between Ali Gholampour and Société Uber Canada, the Court of Québec finds that the statutory conditions for referral to arbitration are not satisfied. Without a proven, binding arbitration agreement between the actual parties to the suit, article 622 C.p.c. cannot be used to oust the court’s jurisdiction. The court therefore dismisses the defendant’s motion to refer the dispute to arbitration and retains jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s wage, damages and related claims. As for the plaintiff’s amended motion to sanction Uber Canada for abuse of procedure, the court does not decide it at this stage. Instead, it postpones its examination to the full hearing on the merits of the main claim, reasoning that only at that time will it be able to properly assess the reasonableness of Uber Canada’s procedural conduct in light of all the evidence. In the dispositive part of the judgment, the court formally rejects the motion for referral to arbitration, defers the abuse-of-procedure motion to the trial on the merits, and awards judicial costs (“frais de justice”) against Société Uber Canada. In this decision, the successful party is thus the plaintiff, Ali Gholampour. No monetary damages on the substance of his claims are granted at this preliminary stage, and the precise amount of costs awarded cannot be determined from the judgment, as they are left to be taxed according to the applicable tariff.