On a labour grievance arbitration appeal, the Court considered whether exclusion of evidence by a grievance arbitrator is reviewable notwithstanding deference owed under a privative regime.
The Court held that an arbitrator has broad authority to define the scope of the case and manage evidence, and mere evidentiary error is not automatically jurisdictional.
However, where refusal to hear relevant and admissible evidence undermines the fairness of the hearing and breaches audi alteram partem, judicial review is available as an excess of jurisdiction.
Because the excluded evidence went directly to the asserted lack of funds and the employees' alleged responsibility for that shortage, the new arbitration order before another arbitrator was upheld.
