The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's award on a policy grievance, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by making factual findings related to individual grievances that were not before him.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator properly used uncontested background facts to provide context for the broad policy award.
The court held that determining facts relevant to the award was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction, and his findings were not patently unreasonable.