Skip to main content

Case information

Conduct a refined search of the Supreme Court of Canada database to obtain details on the status of a matter before the Court.


41201

Adrian Wasylyk v. Lyft, Inc., et al.

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

Docket

Judgments on applications for leave to appeal are rendered by the Court, but are not necessarily unanimous.

List of proceedings
Date Proceeding Filed By
(if applicable)
2024-09-13 Close file on Leave
2024-09-12 Copy of formal judgment sent to Registrar of the Court of Appeal and all parties
2024-09-12 Judgment on leave sent to the parties
2024-09-12 Judgment of the Court on the application for leave to appeal, The application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Number CV-21-00671950-00CP, 2024 ONSC 664, dated January 30, 2024, is dismissed with costs.
Dismissed, with costs
2024-07-29 All materials on application for leave submitted to the Judges, for consideration by the Court
2024-05-16 Applicant's reply to respondent's argument, (Book Form), Completed on: 2024-05-22, (Printed version filed on 2024-05-16) Adrian Wasylyk
2024-05-06 Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23A, (Printed version filed on 2024-05-06) Lyft, Inc.
2024-05-06 Notice of name, (Letter Form), (Printed version filed on 2024-05-06) Lyft, Inc.
2024-05-06 Respondent's response on the application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Completed on: 2024-05-06, (Printed version filed on 2024-05-06) Lyft, Inc.
2024-04-05 Letter acknowledging receipt of an incomplete application for leave to appeal, FILE OPENED 2024-04-05;
2024-03-28 Certificate (on limitations to public access), (Letter Form), 23A;, (Printed version filed on 2024-04-02) Adrian Wasylyk
2024-03-28 Application for leave to appeal, (Book Form), Missing:
-Filing fees; (Rec'd 2024-04-05);
, Completed on: 2024-04-05, (Printed version filed on 2024-04-02)
Adrian Wasylyk

Parties

Please note that in the case of closed files, the “Status” column reflects the status of the parties at the time of the proceedings. For more information about the proceedings and about the dates when the file was open, please consult the docket of the case in question.

Main parties

Main parties - Appellants
Name Role Status
Wasylyk, Adrian Applicant Active

v.

Main parties - Respondents
Name Role Status
Lyft, Inc. Respondent Active
Lyft Canada Inc. Respondent Active

Counsel

Party: Wasylyk, Adrian

Counsel
Sabrina Lombardi
Chanele Rioux-McCormick
McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP
140 Fullarton Street, Suite 1800
London, Ontario
N6A 5P2
Telephone: (519) 672-5666
FAX: (519) 672-2674
Email: sabrina.lombardi@mckenzielake.com
Agent
Marie-France Major
Supreme Advocacy LLP
340 Gilmour Street
Suite 100
Ottawa, Ontario
K2P 0R3
Telephone: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102
FAX: (613) 695-8580
Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca

Party: Lyft, Inc.

Counsel
Andrea Laing
Laura Dougan
Sam Cotton
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
199 Bay Street, Suite 4000
Toronto, Ontario
M5L 1A9
Telephone: (416) 863-4159
FAX: (416) 863-2653
Email: andrea.laing@blakes.com

Party: Lyft Canada Inc.

Counsel
Andrea Laing
Laura Dougan
Sam Cotton
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
199 Bay Street, Suite 4000
Toronto, Ontario
M5L 1A9
Telephone: (416) 863-4159
FAX: (416) 863-2653
Email: andrea.laing@blakes.com

Summary

Keywords

Contracts — Arbitration agreement — Content of agreement — Unconscionability of agreement — Improvidence of bargain — Illegality of bargain — Whether arbitration agreement lacks specificity with respect to procedures and fees — If so, whether agreement unconscionable or contrary to public policy — Whether arbitration agreement subject to imbalance of power or improvidence of bargain — Whether opt-out provisions sufficiently mitigate any imbalance of power or improvidence of bargain — Whether arbitration agreement is contract of adhesion — Whether arbitration agreement fails to specify or explain statutorily protected procedures and remedies — If so, whether arbitration agreement unconscionable or contrary to public policy for attempting to contract out of rights conferred by employment standards legislation.<br>

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Mr. Wasylyk sued Lyft Inc. and Lyft Canada Inc. (collectively, “Lyft”) under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, alleging that he and other Lyft drivers in Ontario are employees, and that Lyft had breached the Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O, 2000, c. 41. Mr. Wasylyk agreed to Lyft’s Terms of Service, including the Arbitration Agreement. Drivers may opt out of the arbitration provisions by contacting its lawyers within 30 days of executing the agreement without losing the other benefits bargained for, including the ability to offer services as a driver. There is no evidence that Mr. Wasylyk opted out of the Arbitration Agreement.

Lyft sought an order under s. 7(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, staying the proposed class action in favour of arbitration. Mr. Wasylyk denied that there was an arbitration agreement but, if it was found that there was one, conceded the other requirements for the existence of an agreement. He argued that his proposed action was suitable for summary judgment, that the arbitration provisions were “inaccessible”, and that the arbitration provisions were unenforceable because the contract was uncertain, unconscionable, contrary to public policy, or unlawfully contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The motion judge found that there was no statutory prohibition against submitting worker contracts (whether those of employees or those of dependent contractors) to arbitration. This arbitration agreement was accessible in that it was not a pretense to access to justice, unconscionable or contrary to public policy. It did not contract out of the Employment Standards Act.

Lower court rulings

January 30, 2024
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

2024 ONSC 664, CV-21-00671950-00CP

Order staying action pursuant to Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 7(1) granted

Memorandums of argument on application for leave to appeal

The memorandums of argument on an application for leave to appeal will be posted here 30 days after leave to appeal has been granted unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of the memorandum by filing out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a memorandum of argument or want to use a memorandum of argument, please contact the author of the memorandum of argument directly. Their name appears at the end of the memorandum of argument. The contact information for counsel is found in the “Counsel” tab of this page.

Downloadable PDFs

Not available

Factums on appeal

The factums of the appellant, the respondent and the intervener will be posted here at least 2 weeks before the hearing unless they contain personal information, information that is subject to a publication ban, or any other information that is not part of the public record. You may also obtain copies of factums by filling out the Request for Court records form or by contacting the Court’s Records Centre either by email at records-dossiers@scc-csc.ca or by telephone at 613‑996‑7933 or at 1‑888‑551‑1185.

If you have questions about a factum or want permission to use a factum, please contact the author of the factum directly. Their contact information appears on the first page of each factum.

Downloadable PDFs

Not available

Webcasts

Not available.

Date modified: 2025-02-27