Irwin v. Protiviti

Irwin v. Protiviti

The motion judge properly stayed the action and referred the validity of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator under the Arbitration Act and applicable common law; the judge was not obliged to decide validity on the motion because the challenges involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring probing factual...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 ONCA 533
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Karen Irwin; Defendant (respondent): Protiviti, a Division of Robert Half Canada Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Robert Half International Inc.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Employment (constructive Dismissal) With Arbitration Motion / Appeal From Motion to Stay Under S.7 of the Arbitration Act (stay Granted by Motion Judge)
Outcome
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; stay of proceedings by motion judge upheld; leave to appeal costs refused; respondents awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Arbitration Agreement Validity, Unconscionability, Procedural Fairness, Appealability, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
english
Employment Law Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Constructive Dismissal Arbitration Agreement Validity Unconscionability Procedural Fairness Appealability +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karen Irwin

Plaintiff (appellant)

Protiviti, a Division of Robert Half Canada Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Robert Half International Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Employment (constructive Dismissal) With Arbitration Motion / Appeal From Motion to Stay Under S.7 of the Arbitration Act (stay Granted by Motion Judge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration clause was invalid for unconscionability
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clause was inconsistent with the Employment Standards Act or Human Rights Code
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge was required to decide validity of the arbitration clause or could refer it to arbitration

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge properly stayed the action and referred the validity of the arbitration clause to the arbitrator under the Arbitration Act and applicable common law; the judge was not obliged to decide validity on the motion because the challenges involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring probing factual inquiry; the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction under s.7(6).

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction; stay of proceedings by motion judge upheld; leave to appeal costs refused; respondents awarded costs.

Orders

  • Appeal quashed
  • Leave to appeal costs of the motion refused