At first glance, access to justice (A2J) might seem more relevant to areas like family, criminal, or poverty law. But through my unique position as both an Osgoode Hall Law School JD/MBA student and a research assistant for the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice (CFCJ), I’ve come to recognize a crucial and sometimes overlooked intersection between A2J and business law. That is: the challenges people face in accessing justice are not confined to traditionally “personal” legal matters. Everyday legal problems—ranging from contract disputes to consumer rights challenges—are deeply intertwined with business law, shaping both individual experiences and the broader economy. These challenges, including regulatory compliance and contractual conflicts, often create significant barriers to justice, particularly for those without the resources to navigate them effectively.
Many people encounter business law issues in their daily lives but often don’t realize it. For example, a consumer who faces a billing dispute with a service provider or struggles with unclear return policies at a store is caught in the realm of business law. The CFCJ has conducted extensive research on how everyday legal problems, such as those mentioned above, can place significant financial and mental strain on individuals. According to the CFCJ’s Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost of Justice in Canada: Cost of Justice Survey Data report, from 2011 to 2018, consumer-related legal problems emerged as the most prevalent legal challenge faced by Canadians. The report estimates that approximately 23% of respondents encountered at least one consumer-related legal issue within a three-year period. These issues frequently involved contract disputes, purchasing conflicts, and other marketplace-related legal concerns, underscoring the widespread impact of consumer law challenges on everyday life. This highlights that A2J in the realm of business law is not just a matter of abstract theory—it is a pressing, everyday concern for a large portion of the population.
Unfortunately, without adequate access to legal advice or understanding of their rights, these consumers may feel powerless to resolve the issue, and businesses often have little incentive to address the imbalance. This dynamic is a direct consequence of the A2J gap, where legal barriers aren’t just procedural—they manifest in the very structures of commerce. Let me provide an example. Have you ever clicked “I agree” to the terms and conditions of a website without really reading them? Or signed up for a phone plan without fully understanding the fine print? You’re not alone. These scenarios are all examples of contracts of adhesion—a common yet overlooked obstacle to access to justice.
Contracts of adhesion are standard-form agreements, found everywhere from software licenses to mobile phone contracts. They are drafted unilaterally by businesses to establish the terms of their service. Often presented on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis, they leave consumers with little room for negotiation. The terms are filled with dense legal jargon, hidden fees, and restrictive clauses designed to protect corporate interests while minimizing consumer rights. Many consumers may be unaware of the consequences of signing these agreements or perhaps they are unwilling to engage with their complexities given the need for the service, and/or assume (rightly or wrongly) that the risk of signing something they don’t understand is low. Likely, many consumers feel they have no choice but to sign such an agreement. However, that does not mean the agreement is without consequence.
A notable case in Canada, Douez v. Facebook, Inc., 2017 SCC 33, [2017], sheds light on the challenges posed by contracts of adhesion. In this Supreme Court of Canada case, the plaintiff, a British Columbia resident named Dawn Douez, sued Facebook for privacy violations related to its use of personal data in targeted advertising. However, Facebook’s terms of service contained a forum selection clause requiring users to litigate disputes in California, under California law. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the forum selection clause was unenforceable, recognizing the significant imbalance of power between a multinational corporation and individual consumers. The Court also emphasized public policy concerns, particularly the importance of consumer protection and access to justice. This case illustrates how contracts of adhesion can limit consumers’ ability to seek legal recourse and highlights broader concerns about the fairness and transparency of such agreements in business law.
It is unlikely that most people will ever want or need (or be able to) to engage the highest level of court in this way over such a contract. However, the case serves as a reminder that such contracts, when allowed to proliferate and understood as simply ‘part of doing business’, overlook important questions about fairness and transparency. While these contracts are designed to protect corporate interests, they also create significant barriers for consumers seeking to resolve disputes.
From a business law perspective, the proliferation of contracts of adhesion calls for deeper ethical reflection and reform. If such contracts, or other everyday consumer law matters were viewed through the lens of access to justice, defined by Trevor Farrow in his article What is Access to Justice? as: ensuring that people can meaningfully engage with the legal system to resolve disputes, enforce rights, and participate in economic and social life, how might they be reimagined? From the perspective of a law and business student, hoping to make a meaningful contribution to both professions, perhaps one way in which to address the A2J gap is to think beyond the issue of strict compliance with regulatory rules and other business policy and practice. Instead, placing front and center the practice of fostering trust with consumers and operating ethically in a complex marketplace. Perhaps it means ensuring that all parties, particularly consumers, are informed and empowered to make choices that don’t leave them at a disadvantage. Legal professionals, like those in business law, can lead the way by advocating for clearer contracts, written in plain language that offer more equitable terms.
By advocating for clearer contracts and meaningfully accounting for consumer rights, as legal professionals, we have a unique opportunity—and responsibility—to ensure that the legal system is more accessible and fairer for everyone. As a law student, I see significant opportunities where access to justice can enhance business law—not only by helping individuals navigate business related legal matters, but also by fostering a more transparent and efficient framework for businesses to operate under.
By Kyle Farren
Canadian Forum on Civil Justice Research Assistant
Osgoode Hall Law School JD/MBA candidate
**This blog was originally published on Slaw.ca on April 8, 2025: https://www.slaw.ca/2025/04/08/bridging-the-gap-between-access-to-justice-and-business-law/**