View cases - Stewart McKelvey

Page: 248(c) of the Act (or s. 49(1)(f) which also refers to a party being treated unfairly orunequally) would not provide the Applicant with any relief in the circumstances ofthis case. There is nothing, in my opinion, which supports the suggestion that theApplicant was the subject of manifestly unfair or unequal treatment. With respect, itis my view that by raising this section of the Act the Applicant is attempting to dothrough the back door (s. 8(c)) that which it is unable to do through the front door (s.48).2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)[61] The Applicant has also suggested that s. 6 of the Commercial Arbitration Actprevents the Respondent from relying on s. 48 of the said Act. In my view, thisargument also has no merit.[62] The application of Sharecare Homes Incorporated for judicial review of thedecision of John P. Merrick, Q.C. will be dismissed.COSTS[63] The Applicant has requested costs of both the arbitration and this proceeding.The Respondent seeks costs of this proceeding. As the Respondent has beensuccessful in this application she shall be awarded costs.[64] Civil Procedure Rule 77.06 applies in the circumstances of this case andprovides:Assessment of costs under tariff at end of proceeding