View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 20which the Court dealt, inter alia, with the issue of whether certiorari for error of lawon the face of the record was available in relation to decisions of a private body.Freeman J.A. stated at 28:.........Madam Justice Roscoe found that certiorari for error of law on the face of therecord was not available because the Business Conduct Committee panel was a nonstatutorytribunal, but that it was open to her to review the panel's proceedings forwant of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. She relied on Chyz v. AppraisalInstitute of Canada (1985), 44 Sask. R.165, in which the Saskatchewan Court ofAppeal was considering the finding of the trial judge that "certiorari and prohibition,generally speaking, will not lie against a private body which derives its jurisdictionfrom the consent of its members banded together in a voluntary organization”. Aftera comprehensive review of the case law Tallis, J.A., found that "domestic tribunals(are) subject to the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness". Remediesincluding [sic] declaratory or injunctive relief.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)[47] His Lordship went on to state at 31:While prerogative writs do not lie against the panel as a domestic tribunal, itsproceedings are reviewable for want of jurisdiction or breaches of natural justice,which would include bias, as Madam Justice Roscoe found. The remedy, as inSaskatchewan, would be declaratory or injunctive relief.[48] As a preliminary matter, the Applicant submits that the Ripley decision, supra,is not binding upon me as it was decided almost 20 years ago and prior to theenactment of the Commercial Arbitration Act. In the alternative, the Applicantsubmits that if I determine that judicial review is generally not available in thecircumstances of this case, that based on Ripley, supra, the award in question is,nevertheless, reviewable if the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction or breached theprinciples of natural justice.