Canada: Canada's Highest Court Affords Substantial Deference To Arbitral Process

Last Updated: September 15 2014
Article by Debbie Asirvatham and Craig Chiasson

Most Read Contributor in Canada, September 2016

In Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp (2014 SCC 53) the Supreme Court, in the context of a challenge to a domestic arbitral award, has reaffirmed Canada's longstanding pro-arbitration stance


In Sattva Capital Corp v Creston Moly Corp (2014 SCC 53) the Supreme Court, in the context of a challenge to a domestic arbitral award, has reaffirmed Canada's longstanding pro-arbitration stance.

Unlike in the international context (in which Canada follows the principles set out in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law and the New York Convention), domestic arbitral awards may be reviewed on a number of limited grounds, including with respect to pure questions  of law (but only with leave of the court). A number of courts across the country have been grappling with the issue of whether an alleged error in the interpretation of a contract is a pure question of law (and therefore reviewable) or a question of mixed  fact and law (and therefore not subject to review).

Parties on the losing end of domestic arbitral awards have repeatedly sought to argue that any error in the interpretation of a contract is a pure question of law and therefore subject to review. In Sattva v Creston the Supreme Court held that the interpretation of a contract is almost always a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore an application for review of an arbitral award based solely on an alleged contractual interpretation error should rarely be reviewable.

The global message from the Supreme Court to arbitration parties across Canada is that if they agree to arbitrate, they should expect to be bound by arbitrators' decisions. In other words, Canadian courts expect parties to respect the process for which they signed up.


Sattva v Creston arose from Creston Moly Corporation's contractual obligations to pay  Sattva Capital Corp a finder's fee in relation to the acquisition of a molybdenum mining property in Mexico. The parties had agreed that Sattva was entitled to a fee of US$1.5 million, which could be paid in shares of Creston, cash or a combination thereof. However, they disagreed on the date for determining the price of the Creston shares and thus the number of shares to which Sattva was entitled. Each party relied on a different contractual provision to support its view.

The parties entered into arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act (RSBC 1996, c 55), which governs domestic commercial arbitrations in British Columbia. The arbitrator found in favour of Sattva. Creston applied for leave to appeal that decision, which was denied by the British Columbia lower court. On appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Creston successfully obtained leave to appeal the arbitral award, which was then remitted back to the lower court to be heard.

The lower court upheld the arbitrator's decision. Creston then appealed that decision, and the appeal court again overturned the lower court (and this  time the arbitrator's award too), holding in favour of Creston. Sattva itself then appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the appeal court's initial leave decision was wrong and in its second decision the appeal court erred in overturning the arbitrator's award on the basis of an error of law.


The Supreme Court overturned the appeal court on both grounds; it therefore reinstated the arbitral award and held that the appeal court had erred in granting the leave application in the first place.

The Supreme Court also took the opportunity, in light of the history of Creston refusing to accept the arbitrator's decision and repeatedly invoking the intervention of   the courts, to clarify for future courts faced with leave applications the limited circumstances in which leave should be granted to review domestic arbitral awards. In doing so, the Supreme Court provided its views on:

  • the 'pure questions of law' issue;
  • what could amount to a miscarriage of justice;
  • what should be the standard of review; and
  • how courts should approach their residual discretion to deny leave even where grounds to grant leave may exist.

Limiting leave to appeal only pure questions of law

The Supreme Court found that the appeal court had erred in granting leave to appeal by misconstruing   the interpretation of the contract as solely a question of law. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator's conclusions regarding the construction of the contract were made after duly considering the terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances in which it was made. As such, the analysis involved questions of mixed fact and law which could not be reviewed under the Arbitration Act. The court recognised that the Arbitration Act deliberately restricts a party's attempts to re-litigate an issue that it has willingly submitted to arbitration.

The court concluded that in most arbitral awards, the interpretation of a contract involves a question of mixed fact and law which cannot be appealed pursuant to the Arbitration Act. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court provided the following guidance for future arbitrators and courts:

  • While questions of law are questions which ask "what the correct legal test is", contractual interpretation involves the application of such legal principles to the words of a contract considered in light of its factual matrix.
  • The role of reviewing courts is to ensure consistency of the law as opposed to providing parties a new forum within which to continue their private litigation.
  • Deference to fact-finders promotes the worthy goals of limiting the number, length and cost of proceedings, while upholding the autonomy and integrity of legal proceedings.
  • Courts should be wary of creating extricable questions of law in disputes over contractual interpretation regardless of how issues may be characterised by parties and/or counsel.
  • While it may be possible to identify an extricable question of law that may be reviewed, such circumstances will be rare as the goal of contractual interpretation is "inherently fact specific".
  • Properly extricable questions of law may include allegations  regarding:
    • the application of an incorrect principle;
    • the failure to consider a required element of a legal test or a relevant factor; or
    • other substantive law issues regarding the requirements for the formation of a contract and the capacity of the parties.
  • While surrounding circumstances will be considered in interpreting a contract, such considerations cannot outweigh or contradict the words of the contract itself and they must be confined to objective evidence of the background facts at the time of the execution of the contract.

Limiting leave to appeal where there is no miscarriage of justice

Pursuant to Section 31(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act, a court may also grant leave to appeal a question of law in the limited circumstances where "determining the issue may prevent a miscarriage of justice" and "the importance of the result of the arbitration justifies the intervention of the court" (courts have held that this latter factor should not be broadly construed). In order for this threshold to be met, the Supreme Court stated that the following conditions must be satisfied:

  • The alleged error of law must pertain to a material issue in the dispute which, if decided differently, would affect the final result of the case; and
  • The appeal itself must have some possibility of succeeding because the alleged legal error has arguable merit (to be assessed without making any final determinations with respect to the merits of the case).

In doing so, the Supreme Court signalled to parties  and counsel that this ground of review is to be viewed narrowly.

Limiting leave to appeal by applying deferential standard of review

The Supreme Court confirmed that the standard   of review of arbitral awards rendered under the Arbitration Act should almost always be the higher threshold of "reasonableness" rather than the lower threshold of "correctness".

The application of this standard asks a court to consider whether there is any arguable merit to the position that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable. More specifically, an arbitrator's decision will be considered reasonable if it satisfies the thresholds of justifiability, transparency and intelligibility. The Supreme Court indicated that a decision may be reasonable even if the arbitrator did not expressly refer to all of the arguments, provisions or jurisprudence submitted or make specific findings on each constituent element of the claim before him or her.

The Supreme Court noted that an arbitrator's decisions should be reviewed as being "correct" rather than "reasonable" only in rare cases, such as those  involving a constitutional question or a question of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole and outside the arbitrator's expertise.

Limiting leave to appeal by exercising residual discretion

Finally, even if all of the statutory conditions for granting leave are satisfied in a given case, the Supreme Court stated that courts should not be afraid to exercise the residual discretion that they have to deny leave. The court provided the following non-exhaustive list of factors to consider in a leave application under Section 31(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act (where parties have alleged that the result of arbitration is important to them and may prevent a miscarriage of justice):

  • the conduct of the parties (regardless of whether such conduct was directly relevant to the question of law to be advanced on appeal);
  • the existence of alternative remedies;
  • any undue delay; and
  • the urgent need for a final answer.

While additional factors may apply for leave applications where the point of law at issue is of importance to some larger class or the public in general, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts should not reconsider matters and that, among other things, the exercise of discretion must pertain to the facts and circumstances of a particular case rather than broader policy goals.

The Supreme Court also admonished appellate courts not to interfere with a lower court's discretionary decision refusing leave unless the lower court judge misdirected himself or herself or the decision was so clearly wrong so as to amount to an injustice.


In Sattva v Creston the Supreme Court effectively instructed courts across the country to afford substantial deference to arbitral awards. The Supreme Court's conclusions that most cases will involve questions of mixed fact and law and that a deferential standard of review of "reasonableness" should generally apply should result in far fewer arbitral awards being subject to court review, and therefore more awards being deemed final more quickly.

Arbitration is intended to provide parties with an efficient and effective binding resolution to their dispute without layers of process and the extra costs that necessarily follow. The Supreme Court in Sattva v Creston has signalled to parties that they should abide by the process that they freely chose.

About BLG

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.