The applicant sought to set aside an arbitration award requiring payment of finder’s fees arising from investments made by a third-party investor introduced through the respondent.
The applicant argued the arbitrator committed unreasonable errors of law, improperly relied on a prior agreement, misinterpreted a non‑circumvention clause, and exceeded jurisdiction by determining issues relating to securities law registration requirements.
The court held that even if reasonableness review were available, the arbitrator’s interpretation of the finder’s fee agreement was reasonable and grounded in the contractual language and factual matrix.
The court further held that securities law compliance issues were capable of arbitration and that the applicant had waived jurisdictional objections by raising the issue before the arbitrator.
The application to set aside the award was dismissed and the cross‑application to enforce the arbitration award was granted.
