View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 19(d) the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in accordance with the arbitrationagreement or, where the agreement did not deal with the matter, was not in accordancewith this Act;(e) the subject-matter of the arbitration is not capable of being the subject ofarbitration pursuant to the law of the Province;(f) the applicant was treated manifestly unfairly and unequally, was not given anopportunity to present a case or to respond to the case of another party or was notgiven proper notice of the arbitration or of the appointment of an arbitrator;(g) the procedures followed in the arbitration did not comply with this Act or thearbitration agreement;(h) an arbitrator committed a corrupt or fraudulent act or there is a reasonableapprehension of bias;(i) the award was obtained by fraud.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII).......................[44] In my view, these provisions of the Act support the suggestion that the courtshould take a restrictive approach to judicial intervention of a consensual arbitrator’saward.[45] Further, I do not agree with the Applicant’s suggestion that in Nova Scotia thereis no adequate, alternate remedy to judicial review. Section 48 of the CommercialArbitration Act clearly allows the parties to agree to a right of appeal. If the partiesagree – an award may be appealed on a question of law, on a question of fact or on aquestion of mixed law and fact. The only prerequisite is that the parties agree to aright of appeal. In the case at bar, no such agreement was reached. That does notmean that an alternate, adequate remedy is not available in Nova Scotia. It simplymeans that this remedy was not taken advantage of in the circumstances of this case.[46] In the post hearing submissions filed on behalf of the Applicant reference wasmade to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision in Ripley v. Investment DealersAssociation of Canada et al. (No. 2) (1991), 108 N.S.R. (2d) 38 (N.S.S.C. A.D.) in