Standard of review Archives - Arbitration Matters

November 28, 2025November 28, 2025

Stephanie’s Reflections (2025): The Battle of the Standards of Review – #926

The standard of review for an appeal of a commercial arbitration award has been a topic of debate since the release of the administrative law decision of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. Since then, lower courts in Canada have grappled with two opposite interpretations: the first, that the standard of review analysis in Vavilov applies to commercial arbitrations, and the second, that the standard of review for commercial arbitration awards is reasonableness, as established in Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp, 2014 SCC 53 [Sattva] and Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 [Teal Cedar].

October 3, 2025December 4, 2025

Manitoba – First CA finding reasonableness standard applies to commercial award appeals – #921

Buffalo Point First Nation v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc, 2025 MBCA 72 was the first appellate court to decide that the standard of review set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 for reviews of decisions of administrative tribunals does not apply to appeals of commercial arbitration awards. (As explained below in my commentary, this italicized language is critical to the analysis of this case.) Instead, the “reasonableness” standard of review, which was established in Sattva Capital Corp. v Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53 and affirmed in Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32, applies. In other words, Vavilov did not overturn Sattva. The fact that domestic arbitration legislation provides an appeal right does not mean that the same “appellate standards” apply in this context. The Court applied the reasonableness review analysis set out in Vavilov, except it found that a greater level of deference might be owed to an arbitrator’s expertise given the purpose of commercial arbitration; namely, giving effect to the parties’ desire for that method of dispute resolution. In other words, this standard of review reflects the reasonable expectations of the parties.

July 29, 2024July 25, 2024

Ontario – Missed Opportunity re Implications of Set-Aside Test for Procedural Unfairness? – #850

In Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2024 ONCA 480 (CanLII) (for ease of reference, “Vento-CIPPIC“), the Court addressed The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic’s (“CIPPIC’s”) application to intervene in Vento’s appeal of last year’s Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s dismissal of Vento’s application to set aside a 2020 international arbitration award [Vento Motorcycles, Inc. v. United Mexican States, 2023 ONSC 5964 (CanLII), (“Vento”)]. That and related decisions were discussed in several Arbitration Matters previous blogs, including 810, 796, 572, and 807. CIPPIC’s application was unsuccessful. The Court rejected its application for three reasons: (1) it hadn’t shown a sufficient link between its expertise and the issues in the appeal or its unique perspective; (2) the higher threshold to be granted leave to intervene in a private dispute; and (3) the risk CIPPIC’s intervention would unjustifiably expand the scope of the appeal.

March 11, 2024March 8, 2024

Ontario – Arbitrator’s stand-alone jurisdiction decision a preliminary “ruling” open to de novo review – #820

In Clost v Rennie, 2023 ONSC 6998, the Court ruled that an arbitration agreement was invalid after a de novo hearing to “decide the matter” of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction under section 17(8) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 (the “Act”). The Applicant (also referred to in the decision and herein as “Norm”) contended that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it was contained in a lease agreement which he alleged was fraudulent because his signature was forged. The parties first submitted the jurisdictional issue to a sole arbitrator, who found the arbitration agreement to be valid. The Court accepted that a de novo hearing under s. 17(8) of the Act was required, finding that the Arbitrator had rendered a “ruling” on a preliminary question of jurisdiction rather than an “award”, even though the sole question he was asked to determine was jurisdiction. There was an extensive evidentiary record before the arbitrator relative to the jurisdictional issue. This raised for debate the difference between an “award” and a “ruling” on a preliminary question which can be decided by the Court on a hearing de novo. The Court completed its own review of the extensive evidentiary record and ultimately concluded that the lease (and therefore the arbitration agreement) was fraudulent and invalid and the arbitrator had no jurisdiction

January 5, 2024April 30, 2024

Stephanie Reflects (2023): What’s the Standard? Reviews, Appeals and “Decisions of the Matter” – #806

For better or for worse, parties can challenge arbitral decisions through multiple avenues, whether through a review of a preliminary jurisdictional ruling, set-aside application, or appeal. Arbitration case law in 2023 highlighted a striking lack of consistency between the standards of review and appeal applied in each of these different avenues.

November 21, 2023November 23, 2023

Newfoundland and Labrador – Set-aside application denied where award meets Vavilov reasonableness test – #793

In Zenda Mount Pearl Square Enterprises Limited Partnership v MP TEI Realty Limited Partnership, 2023 NLSC 142, the Applicant/Respondent in the arbitration applied to set aside an arbitral award arising from a dispute involving the contractual entitlement to refinancing proceeds that the Applicant/Respondent received as a result of a rogue transfer of funds. Section 14 of the Newfoundland and Labrador Arbitration Act, RSNL 1990, c A-14 (the “Arbitration Act”) gives the Court the authority to set aside an arbitral award if it finds that there was Arbitrator misconduct or the award was improperly procured. The Court held that the burden is on the applicant to show that the award is improper as a matter of fact, law, or mixed fact and law, and that the award falls outside out any potential reasonable outcome. The Court’s analysis and reasons looked at whether the decision of the Arbitrator was reasonable, applying Layman v Layman Estate, 2016 NLCA 13 (“Layman”). Focusing, in part, on the Arbitrator’s application of the principles of contract interpretation set out in Creston Moly Corp. v Sattva Capital Corp., 2014 SCC 53 (“Sattva”), the Court concluded that the Arbitrator’s decision to divide the proceeds equally between the parties was reasonable based on the terms of the parties’ agreements. The Court dismissed the set-aside application on the basis that the decision of the Arbitrator, in respect of all of the grounds reviewed by the Court, was reasonable. This case has application to the review (including on set-asides) of arbitration decisions on the basis of reasonableness and the contractual interpretation of commercial agreements.

November 8, 2023November 3, 2023

Manitoba – Awards set aside after arbitrator re-wrote parties’ bargain – #790

In Buffalo Point First Nation and Buffalo Point Development Corp Ltd v Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association, Inc, 2023 MBKB 141, the Court confirmed its earlier decision on the motion for leave to appeal, in which it held that the correctness standard of appeal in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”) applies to review of private arbitration awards appealed under provincial arbitration legislation. The Court held that the arbitrator had erred because he exceeded the jurisdiction granted to him under the parties’ agreement. First, the arbitrator exceeded the jurisdiction to “implement” or “clarify” a Consent Award which the parties had entered into following an earlier dispute. Second, the arbitrator’s award constituted “a significant rewrite of the bargain (…) by introducing new concepts alien to the negotiated bargain”.

June 5, 2023June 5, 2023

Ontario – No hearing de novo in case of challenge to procedural fairness – #742

In All Communications Networks of Canada v. Planet Energy Corp., 2023 ONCA 319, the Court dismissed the appeal of a judgment upholding an arbitral award in favour of Respondent All Communications Networks of Canada (“ACN”) in the amount of $29,259,787 and made an order enforcing the award. In first instance, Planet Energy Corp. (“Planet”) sought to set aside the arbitral award based on the failure of due process, arguing: (1) that it was not given the opportunity to present its case; and (2) that the Arbitrator’s ruling violated public policy. Before the Court of Appeal, Appellant Planet raised the additional argument that the first instance judge failed to apply the right standard of review. Planet argued that a de novo hearing was required to examine properly the arguments raised against the arbitral award. The Court of Appeal dismissed Planet’s arguments and confirmed that a party seeking to set aside an arbitral award based on a failure of due process must prove that the Arbitrator’s conduct is serious enough to dismiss the application to enforce the award under the law of the enforcing State (here, Ontario). The Court of Appeal also confirmed that a party seeking to set aside an award based on a violation of public policy shall demonstrate that the award offends Ontario’s principles of justice and fairness in a fundamental way.

May 9, 2023May 5, 2023

B.C. – No error of law where some evidence supports findings of fact – #735

In 1550 Alberni Limited Partnership v. Northwest Community Enterprises Ltd., 2023 BCCA 141, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of Justice Groves, who refused to grant leave to appeal from an arbitral award that turned largely on the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the parties’ agreement, as modified during the course of its performance. The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish that the proposed appeal raised an extricable question of law – because there was some evidence that supported the findings of fact. In so doing, the Court left the issue of the standard of review of the Arbitrator’s decision following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 for another day.

April 27, 2023April 24, 2023

Ontario –Arbitrator erred by allowing surrounding circumstances to overwhelm written agreement – #733

In Burwell v. Wozniak, 2023 ONSC 1685, Justice Jensen of found that the Arbitrator erred in law by allowing a promise in an email to overwhelm the words of a subsequent formal trust agreement. The Court varied the Arbitrator’s decision about the formation of a trust, holding that the Arbitrator’s reliance on surrounding circumstances while downplaying the words of the subsequently formalized agreement, gave rise to an extricable error of law.