Uber runs a global business and is a provider of “lead generation services” in the form of software applications for GPS-enabled smartphones that it sells to transportation providers. Uber Technologies Inc., Uber Canada, Inc., Uber B.V., Raser Operations B.V. and Uber Portier B.V. are part of a group of companies known collectively and individually as Uber. Uber Technologies Inc. is founded in accordance with Delaware law and does not operate in Canada. Uber B.V., which operates the intellectual property of Uber applications internationally, is integrated under Dutch law with offices in Amsterdam, as well as Shaving B.V.Operations, which licenses applications. Uber Canada, Inc. is founded under Canadian law and provides marketing and administrative support to Uber B.V. for Uber applications in Canada. , but has no contractual relationship with Uber app users.
Although the AA normally required the courts to interpret the procedures to which an arbitration agreement applies, a court was allowed to refuse a stay of proceedings under S.7(2) if the arbitration agreement was not valid. Like the Supreme Court in Dell Computer Corp. Consumers Union, 2007 CSC 34 (CanLII), challenges to an arbitrator`s jurisdiction should normally be referred to the arbitrator, unless the challenge raises a question of mixed law or law and the fact that can be decided on the basis of a cursory examination of the evidence. Abella and Rowe were more consistent with the fact that in this case, the validity of Uber`s conciliation clause could be determined by a cursory examination of the evidence. However, they also found that Dell`s general rule that an arbitrator should rule on jurisdictional issues does not apply if (1) there is a genuine challenge to arbitration and (2) if a stay of civil proceedings is granted, there is a real prospect that the jurisdictional issue can never be resolved by the arbitrator. The challenge to Heller`s compromise clause was real and, given the high ex ante costs of arbitration, there was a real prospect that Heller`s challenge could never be decided if Uber`s stay was granted. It was therefore appropriate for the civil courts to “cut this Gordian knot” in deciding the validity of the compromise clause. This is the first page of the agreement. In the middle of the bold page, you`ll see that Uber is called a technology company as opposed to a transportation company.
They claim to be a technological platform because their legal problems are just beginning with the CA AB5 act. Under this law and in order to comply with the ABC test under AB5, Uber will soon reveal the passenger locations to all drivers, as well as the length of the journey and revenues! Would he have done it anyway without the threat of AB5? I doubt it, but I see this new development as a big positive for CA pilots. I hope it will be the norm across the country. If Lyft follows Uber in this case, it won`t be seen! In some markets, drivers can rent bikes or scooters via the Lyft platform to get to their destination. In some markets, these bikes and scooters are owned by Lyft. In other markets, Lyft operates a bike or scooter sharing program on behalf of third parties. In both cases, the rental and use of bicycles and scooters via the Lyft platform are subject to additional agreements between you and Lyft and third parties that apply to the relevant market (“additional agreements”). Please check all applicable endorsements carefully.
If you do not agree to be bound by the terms of an endorsement, you cannot rent or use bikes or scooters in this market.