Originally from Arbitration Law of Canada: Practice and Procedure, 3rd Ed.

CHAPTER 9
REMEDIES AGAINST AWARDS

In Canada, our Supreme Court has acknowledged that arbitration, as a private dispute resolution mechanism, is parallel to but not part of a province’s judicial system.  The court should treat the parties to arbitration as strangers to the judicial system who have opted for a different method of resolving their dispute. The court will become involved in the arbitral process only to the extent applicable legislation permits. 
The decision of the arbitrator is only binding as between the parties and the arbitrator, unlike a judge, has no obligation to the State to further, expand, clarify or explain the law. While the arbitrator is to do his or her best to apply the rules of law chosen by the parties, the decision is of no effect beyond the parties. In Hryniak v. Mauldin,  a case dealing with summary judgment, Madam Justice Karakatsanis, writing for the Court commented, in obiter about the rule of law and the “development of the common law” as being outside the scope of arbitration:  

In some circles, private arbitration is increasingly seen as an alternative to a slow judicial process. But private arbitration is not the solution since, without an accessible public forum for the adjudication of disputes, the rule of law is threatened and the development of the common law undermined. 

While Madam Justice Karakatsanis was addressing the need for the courts to adopt procedures that would allow the justice system to be “accessible, proportionate, timely and affordable,” her point about arbitration is apt, but not necessarily in the way she intended. Arbitration does not exist to support the rule of law in any particular judicial system or to advance the common law. It is a contractual process to privately settle a commercial dispute. This reality must be kept in mind when considering to what extent the courts can review arbitral decisions.