The appellant, Karen Irwin, sued her former employers for constructive dismissal.
The respondents moved to stay the action, arguing an arbitration clause in the employment contract required arbitration.
The appellant challenged the arbitration clause's validity due to unconscionability and inconsistency with the Employment Standards Act and Human Rights Code.
The motion judge stayed the action, deferring the validity question to arbitration.
The appellant appealed, arguing procedural unfairness and that the motion judge erred by not determining the arbitration clause's validity.
The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, as the motion judge was permitted to leave the validity question to the arbitrator, especially since it involved mixed questions of fact and law requiring more than superficial consideration.
