Reasonableness or Correctness? Supreme Court Grants Leave in Buffalo Point to Address Standard of Review in Arbitral Appeals

Domestic arbitration statutes may provide a right to appeal a private arbitration decision to the courts in certain circumstances. However, these statutes are typically silent about the standard of review that courts are to apply in arbitral appeals. 

In recent years, Canadian courts have divided on whether questions of law in arbitral appeals should be reviewed for reasonableness (where the court defers to the arbitrator’s decision) or correctness (where the reviewing court does not defer to the arbitrator’s decision and can substitute its own judgment).

On July 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal from the Manitoba Court of Appeal’s decision in Buffalo Point First Nation v. Buffalo Point Cottage Owners Association Inc. (Buffalo Point). In that case, the Manitoba court applied a deferential reasonableness review to an arbitral appeal. This appeal gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify the applicable standard of review in arbitral appeals. 

Past Supreme Court of Canada Jurisprudence on Arbitral Standards of Review

In Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. and Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. British Columbia, the Supreme Court held that questions of law in arbitral appeals should usually be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness. This deferential judicial posture was grounded in the principles of party autonomy to choose arbitration, the arbitrator’s expertise and finality. 

In its 2019 decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, the Supreme Court addressed the standard of review in appeals of administrative decisions (such as the decisions of statutory decision-makers and tribunals). The Supreme Court held that, in those cases, courts should apply ordinary appellate standards of review, including the standard of correctness for questions of law. Vavilov did not expressly discuss appeals from arbitration awards.

The Post-Vavilov Divide

Since Vavilov, courts have divided about whether the holding in Vavilov displaces Sattva’s approach to the standard of review for arbitral appeals. 

Some courts have applied Vavilov’s appellate standards of review, where legal issues are reviewed for correctness. Those courts have emphasized that the reasoning in Vavilov — that a right of appeal implies ordinary appellate oversight — applies as much to arbitral appeals as it does to administrative appeals.

Other courts have held that the Sattva reasonableness standard should continue to apply in arbitral appeals. They distinguish Vavilov as an administrative law case that did not overturn Sattva or address the commercial arbitration context.

In its 2021 Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District decision, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to clarify the standard of review applicable to arbitral appeals but declined to do so. While a minority of the Court was inclined to overrule Sattva and apply Vavilov appellate standards to arbitral appeals, the majority did not address the issue. 

Courts of appeal across the country have been divided as well. The Court of Appeal for Ontario’s jurisprudence on the standard of review in arbitral appeals has been mixed. By contrast, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has favoured the Vavilov approach of applying ordinary appellate standards of review to arbitral appeals. 

Manitoba Court of Appeal Sticks With Sattva in Buffalo Point

In Buffalo Point, the Manitoba Court of Appeal held that Vavilov did not expressly or impliedly overturn Sattva or Teal Cedar, and that these cases remain good law unless they are overruled by the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that commercial arbitration awards are “the product of contractual agreements between parties who have chosen to reach a resolution of their own making,” distinct from the administrative decisions to which Vavilov applies. The Court held that the policy objectives of commercial arbitration, including efficiency and finality, militated in favour of Sattva’s deferential reasonableness standard of review. 

On July 23, 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in Buffalo Point.

Key Takeaways – SCC Poised to Resolve the Uncertainty

The grant of leave in Buffalo Point gives the Supreme Court a direct opportunity to resolve the question left open in Wastech: whether questions of law in arbitral appeals are reviewed for reasonableness or correctness. 

The outcome has real consequences. A shift to a correctness review for questions of law would narrow deference to arbitrators and widen the scope for successful arbitral appeals, while preserving Sattva’s reasonableness review will affirm deference to arbitrators and narrow the scope for successful arbitration appeals. 

For more information, please contact the authors or any other member of our Arbitration or Litigation & Dispute Resolution group.