Two of the main benefits of private arbitration are said to be
speed and finality. However, the long running case of Sattva Capital Corporation v. Creston Moly
Corporation has been a prime example of how court
intervention into the arbitration process can lead to arbitration
being anything but speedy or final. I first blogged about this case
on May 9, 2011 when it had been before the
British Columbia Supreme Court ("BCSC") twice and was
headed to its second hearing before the British Columbia Court of
Appeal ("BCCA"). At that time, more than three years had
passed since the arbitrator had supposedly issued a "final
decision."
The dispute was over the valuation of a finder's fee. The
arbitrator found that Creston was obligated to pay Sattva
$4,140,000 plus costs in connection with the acquisition of
Creston's molybdenum mining property in Mexico. The dispute was
arbitrated under the Arbitration Act (British Columbia).
Section 31 granted what had been thought to be
