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

Young v. Saanich Police Department, et al Page 67
on a role comparable to the role of this court under the JRPA.
I need only apply a standard of correctness to the review
decision. See Cameron v. Sparks, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1570
(S.C.); Gallupe v. Birch, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1023 (S.C.).
[139] In Fulber, Smith J. also addressed the question of
procedural fairness at an arbitration hearing. She concluded
that the parties are entitled to a high standard of procedural
2003 BCSC 926 (CanLII)
fairness. Smith J. said this, at paras. 26 and 30:
26 ... In Baker, L'Heureux Dubé J. said (at
pp. 837-841) that the following principles are
relevant to the determination of the content of the
duty of procedural fairness in a given case: (1)
the nature of the decision being made and the
process followed in making it, in particular the
closeness of the process to a judicial process; (2)
the nature of the statutory scheme and the role of
the particular decision within that scheme, in
particular whether there is an internal appeal
procedure; (3) the importance of the decision to the
persons affected, which is identified as a
particularly significant factor; (4) the legitimate
expectations of the person challenging the decision
as to the procedures which will be followed; and (5)
whether the statute leaves the decision-maker the
ability to choose its own procedures and whether the
agency has expertise in determining what procedures
are appropriate in the circumstances.
...
30 Considering each of the factors specified in
Baker, I first note that arbitrators under the Act
have the power to determine their own procedure
(s. 55) and that they may have expertise in making
that determination. This factor points to nonintervention.
However, the other factors
highlighted in Baker point to the necessity for a
high standard of procedural fairness. The