How exactly did uber try to move the case to an EU country for Canada?

There are some super rare edge case legal arguments about jurisdictions and which laws apply within the eu for employees/workers who regularly work in different countries but not non eu countries and eu ones.

It's not "a case", it's "arbitration". Arbitration is extremely... arbitrary.

Sorry was using HR/IR slang and legally binding arbitration is not normally arbitrary.

They didn't 'try to move the case'. They had a choice of forums clause in their agreement with drivers. Choice of forums clauses are supposed to give certainty to the location that a dispute would be heard in the event of a dispute. Theoretically they should be used to clarify the jurisdiction to govern the contract in the event of a complicated international enterprise so that parties can avoid fighting over the proper location to litigate the dispute.

The court found that in this case 1) the clause functionally was just an attempt to circumvent Ontario labour standards, 2) the clause was the result of a disparity between the power of Uber and the power of their drivers, and 3) Uber exercised their power here intentionally to deprive their drivers.

Canada has been moving to incorporate more civilian-style protections into their common law contracts jurisprudence. Civilian style systems have much less of an issue striking down abusive clauses like the aforementioned arbitration clause.

However, even if the abusive clause was struck down, recognize that the existence of the clause was still a net benefit to Uber; Prior to the ruling, there was the possibility that this litigation failed, and that the drivers or their lawyers (depending on their fee arrangement) would be saddled with the cost of fighting. The uncertainty itself is the aim of clauses like this one, even if most people recognize they are abhorrent.

Without strict penalties for this type of contracting behaviour, it unfortunately still benefits employers to twist arms.