This appeal addressed the interpretation of "fraud" in sections 46(1)9 and 47(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, specifically whether it includes "constructive fraud." The application judge had set aside an arbitral award, finding constructive fraud by the Condominium Corporation for expanding the scope of arbitration beyond costs.
The Court of Appeal reversed this, holding that "fraud" in the Act refers only to actual fraud, requiring dishonesty or moral turpitude, not the broader equitable concept of constructive fraud.
The court emphasized the Act's objectives of efficiency and finality in arbitration, and the narrow grounds for judicial intervention.