Distinguishing Expert Determination from Arbitration: The Canadian Approach in a Comparative Perspective

Abstract

The distinction between expert determination and arbitration is significant because a different normative regime applies to each, often leading to quite different outcomes for a given set of circumstances. A review of the jurisprudence in Canada shows that the two-step test developed by the Supreme Court of Canada to distinguish arbitration from expert determination:, in the 1998 case Sport Maska Inc. v. Zittrer, has too frequently been simplified to a one-criterion test: is the neutral deciding a formulated dispute (suggesting arbitration), or rather filing a gap in a contractual term (suggesting expert determination)? This approach, while adequate for distinguishing non-contentious expert valuation from arbitration, fails to recognize that a dispute may be submitted to a neutral for expert adjudication, a process that is quite different from arbitration. A comparative study of decisions from around the common-law world suggests that two factors can usefully serve to distinguish arbitration from expert adjudication: the duty of an arbitrator to adjudicate between the competing arguments of the parties (without being able to rely on his or her own subjective opinion, as can an expert adjudicator) and the related duty to comply with rules of procedural fairness.