Young v. Saanich Police Department, 2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII).

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 66
the arbitrators' task under the legislation to
determine large numbers of disputes between
landlords and tenants, it seems likely that
arbitrators have expertise in determining when a
landlord's safety or other lawful right or interest
has been seriously impaired by an act or omission of
the tenant. Third, the purpose of the arbitration
scheme in the Act must be to provide for dispute
resolution between landlords and tenants
inexpensively and expeditiously. Consistent with
this would be a deferential approach when the
arbitrators are determining questions of law or
mixed fact and law within their jurisdiction. The
question here, that is, whether the "safety or other
lawful right or interest of the landlord" has been
"seriously impaired by an act or omission of the
tenant", is a question of mixed fact and law.
Fourth, the decision affects the interests of the
particular tenants and landlord, and is not complex,
polycentric, or policy-intensive. This latter
factor points toward less rather than more
deference. However, considering the legislative
scheme and nature of the decision at issue here, as
well as the previously-decided cases on the standard
of review under the Act, I conclude that the
standard of review should be patent
unreasonableness.
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
In more direct terms, I accept the CRHC contention that I must
not interfere with the decision of the arbitrator so long as
there was some evidence before him logically and reasonably
capable of supporting his factual conclusions. I have no
power to interfere even if I might have reached a different
conclusion on the same evidence.
[138] The standard of review to be applied to the decision
of Arbitrator Katz is less deferential. In conducting a
review of another arbitrator’s decision, Arbitrator Katz took