Canada: Arbitration Parties Beware: The Supreme Court Of Canada Unpacks The Sattva Test For Appellate Review Of Arbitration Awards In Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia

Last Updated: December 1 2017
Article by Chidinma Thompson

Most Read Contributor in Canada, December 2018


As litigants continue to experience delayed access to justice occasioned by a backlogged judicial system, Canadian courts continue the struggle to protect the legitimacy of commercial arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution process. The Supreme Court of Canada set out a three-step analysis for appellate review of arbitration awards in Creston Moly Corp v Sattva Capital Corp, 2014 SCC 53 ("Sattva") (i) assess the court's jurisdiction; (ii) determine the standard of review; and (iii) apply the standard of review. As easy as it may appear, applying the Sattva test to arbitral awards is not without challenges. In Teal Cedar Products Ltd v British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32 ("Teal"), the Supreme Court of Canada analyzed the components of the Sattva test, defined the three principal categories of questions to be determined at an appellate review (legal, factual, or mixed questions), and set out a fourth category of questions - extricable questions of law. While Teal provides a guide for the application of the Sattva test, more importantly, it underpins the court's endorsement of the efficiency and finality objectives of commercial arbitrations by reminding parties to arbitration agreements of the very narrow scope of appellate review of arbitration awards.


In 2003, the province of British Columbia ("BC") implemented the Forestry Revitalization Act, SBC 2003, c 17 (the "Act"). As a result of the Act, three licenses owned by Teal Cedar Products Ltd. ("Teal Cedar") were affected negatively. As the areas of land covered by two of the licenses were reduced and all three licenses had a lower quantity of allowable harvest, Teal Cedar suffered significant losses. The Act contained a compensation scheme for the value of improvements made to Crown land (the "Improvements Compensation"). Teal Cedar and BC entered into negotiations to settle the compensation owed under the Act including a Settlement Framework Agreement which provided that no interest would be payable under any compensation BC would provide. These negotiations failed and Teal Cedar and BC subsequently entered into an Amended Agreement to submit the dispute to arbitration.


The issues submitted to arbitration were: the valuation method consistent with the Act (the "Statutory Interpretation/Valuation Issue"), whether BC was liable to pay interest regardless of the Agreement (the "Contractual Interpretation/Interest Issue"), and whether Teal Cedar was entitled to compensation for the unaffected license (the "Statutory Application/License Issue").

The arbitrator accepted the depreciation replacement cost method and held Teal Cedar was entitled to interest regardless of the Settlement Framework Agreement which was a product of the failed negotiations. The arbitrator also held that Teal Cedar was not entitled to improvements compensation for the unaffected license.

Judicial History

On appeal, the British Columbia Supreme Court (2012 BCSC 543) upheld the arbitrator's award except in connection with the Statutory Application Issue, which was remitted to the arbitrator and resulted in an additional award in an amount equal to the value of the improvements. A majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (2013 BCCA 326) reversed the judge's decision, finding that the arbitrator had erred on both the Statutory Interpretation and Contractual Interpretation Issues, as well as the additional ruling on the Statutory Application issue. The Supreme Court of Canada remanded the appeal back to the Court of Appeal, upon the release of Sattva, to apply the three-step analysis for appellate review of arbitration awards: (a) whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to review the alleged error; (b) if so, whether the standard for the review is reasonableness or correctness; and (c) whether the arbitration award withstands scrutiny under the applicable standard of review. A unanimous Court of Appeal (2015 BCCA 263) held that its previous decision was unaltered by Sattva, and reaffirmed its conclusion that the issues ruled upon by the arbitrator were questions of law subject to appellate review, and that the arbitrator was in error regardless of the standard of review applied.

The Decision

A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (Moldaver, Côté, Brown and Rowe JJ. dissenting in part) reversed the Court of Appeal decision in part, in light of Sattva. The Supreme Court defined the three principal categories of questions to be determined at an appellate review (legal, factual, or mixed questions) and set out a fourth category - extricable questions of law. Legal questions are questions about what the correct legal test is. Factual questions are questions about what actually took place between the parties. Mixed questions are questions about whether the facts satisfy the legal test. The Supreme Court held that while the application of a legal test to a set of facts is a mixed question, if in the course of that application the underlying legal test may have been altered, then a legal question arises. In the context of a dispute under the Arbitration Act, such a legal question is open to appellate review, assuming the other jurisdictional requirements of that Act are met. The Supreme Court defined the extricable questions of law as a covert form of legal question where a judge's (or arbitrator's) legal test is implicit to their application of the test rather than explicit in their description of the test.

However, the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of extricable questions of law to preserve finality in commercial arbitration and deference to factual findings. The Supreme Court cautioned courts in identifying extricable questions of law because mixed questions, by definition, involve aspects of law. Courts must be vigilant in distinguishing between an allegation that a legal test may have been altered in the course of its application (an extricable question of law), and an allegation that an unaltered legal test should have, when applied, resulted in a different outcome (a mixed question). This is because of counsel's motivation to strategically frame a mixed question as a legal question in order to gain jurisdiction in appeals from arbitration awards or a favourable standard of review in appeals from civil litigation judgments. The Supreme Court noted that while a question of statutory interpretation is normally characterized as a legal question, contractual interpretation questions do not offer such simple characterization. Contractual interpretation involves factual, legal, and mixed questions, and characterizing the nature of the specific question before the court requires delicate consideration of the narrow issue actually in dispute. In general, contractual interpretation remains a mixed question, not a legal question, as it involves applying contractual law (principles of contract law) to contractual facts (the contract itself and its factual matrix).

Applying the Sattva test, the Supreme Court held that the Statutory Interpretation Issue in this case involved two categories of questions: (a) questions about the broad category of methods that are acceptable under the terms of the Revitalization Act; and (b) questions about the specific or preferable method, within that broad category of acceptable methods, that should ultimately be applied. The first are matters of statutory interpretation and therefore questions of law reviewable by courts. The second are inextricably linked to the evidentiary record at the arbitration hearing, where various experts opined on the virtues of conflicting valuation methodologies, and therefore are mixed questions if not pure questions of fact not reviewable by courts.

The Supreme Court held that courts have no jurisdiction to review the Contractual Interpretation Issue, as the arbitrator was best situated to weigh the factual matrix in his interpretation of the parties' agreement regarding the payment of interest. The fact that the arbitrator may have placed significant weight on that evidence in interpreting the agreement does not engage a legal question conferring jurisdiction on the courts under the Arbitration Act, as that did not alter the underlying test he applied in this case. Further, courts have no jurisdiction to review the Statutory Application Issue, as it engaged whether the arbitrator correctly applied the valuation methodology to a license - a mixed question beyond appellate review.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle in Sattva that the standard of review on legal questions arising from an arbitrator's analysis of statutory interpretation issue is reasonableness, which is almost always the applicable standard when reviewing commercial arbitration awards. According to the Supreme Court, the preference for a reasonableness standard also dovetails with efficiency and finality, which are key objectives of commercial arbitration. It would be an error to claim that all statutory interpretation by an arbitrator demands correctness review simply because it engages a legal question. The Court highlighted the distinction between arbitral awards and a civil litigation judgment, where the nature of the question resolves the standard of review, with factual and mixed questions reviewed for palpable and overriding error and legal questions (including extricable questions of law) reviewed for correctness.

The Supreme Court found that the reasonableness standard was not negated in this case in light of the nature of the question at issue and the arbitrator's presumed expertise. Therefore the Court of Appeal erred in holding that that the standard of review should be correctness for the Statutory Interpretation Issue. While the nature of the question (legal, mixed, or fact) is dispositive of the standard of review in the civil litigation context, it is not in the arbitration context. The Supreme Court found the arbitrator's decision on the question of law reasonable, in that, it fell within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which were defensible in respect of the facts and law, and the decision was justified, transparent and intelligible.


Arbitration can be one of the quickest and flexible ways parties use to resolve disputes, as an alternative to the delays occasioned by overburdened trial courts. The Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed the efficiency and finality objectives of commercial arbitrations. While arbitration has many benefits, parties should be aware of the very narrow scope of the court's jurisdiction to review arbitral awards before entering into arbitration agreements. Parties should address their minds to the fact that courts have no jurisdiction to review contractual interpretation issues arising in arbitrations, as the arbitrator is best situated to weigh the factual matrix in the interpretation of the parties' agreement, provided the arbitrator did not alter the applicable legal test in the course of application. Courts also have no jurisdiction to review application of legal principles to the context of a specific case. Further, unlike civil litigation judgment where the standard of review is fixed (factual and mixed questions reviewed for reasonableness and legal questions, including extricable questions of law, reviewed for correctness), pure questions of law in arbitral awards are almost always reviewed for reasonableness, absent any negating factor.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions