View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 11that the arbitration in question is governed by the provisions of the CommercialArbitration Act.[26] Interestingly, the Applicant itself appears to have recognized the applicabilityof the Commercial Arbitration Act to the circumstances of this case. In the costssubmissions filed with the arbitrator on March 20 th , 2009 the Applicant referred to andrelied on s. 56 of the Commercial Arbitration Act. Further, in the pre-hearingsubmissions filed with this Court in support of this application reference is made tos. 2 of the said Act. This indicates that the Applicant itself recognized that thearbitration took place pursuant to the provisions of that Act.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)[27] That takes me to the issue of whether, in the circumstances of this case, thearbitrator’s decision is subject to the public law remedy of judicial review or whetherit is only subject to review in accordance with the provisions of the CommercialArbitration Act.[28] The matter before me involves a private consensual arbitration. The Partieswere not bound by statute to proceed with arbitration and the arbitrator that theyselected was not appointed pursuant to any legislation. The parties entered into aprivate consensual agreement to resolve their dispute outside of the courts. In myview, it would be inappropriate in the circumstances of this case to proceed with ajudicial review. In particular, it would undermine the stated purpose of theCommercial Arbitration Act (that being to encourage and promote the use ofarbitration as “an alternative to court proceedings” (s. 2)). In addition, it would, in