29
same time I have stuff in writing to MH saying, “I don’t believe in it”, the case is
weak, you know, it’s a weak case. You know the owner has the right, but I am on a
time limit, and I have to pass it forward, and that doesn’t mean it’s approved.” After
a further exchange with the Arbitrator, the witness, Mr. Fellman, was able to fully
explain his position to provide a full answer and defence to the Respondent’s claims
and the queries raised by the Arbitrator; and
(vii) following the privilege document ruling, the Arbitrator stated, “I have always felt
that arbitration has three principal obligations. The first one might be, most people
would say, to make the right decision at the end. Of course, it’s never right in the
eyes of one side or the other, but that’s our first obligation. We have a second
obligation to run a fair process. No one would argue with that. And our third
obligation is to protect the process against collateral challenge after the fact…If I
have to err, I am going to err on the side of protecting the process”.
156. The Applicants argue that discussion concerning the privilege document ruling in
fact evidenced a pre-judging of the issues. In particular, the Applicants point to a
statement made by the Arbitrator to the Respondent’s counsel that they rely upon as
indicating pre-judgment as follows: “So, ultimately, I have to decide at the end of the day
whether your client gets $1 or 30 million or something in between; is that fair? To which
Respondent’s counsel answered “Yes”.
157. The Applicants argue that the above statement evidences the Arbitrator pre-
determined liability and has determined that the Respondents are entitled to payment with
only the quantum in dispute. I do not accept this argument.
158. The statement by the Arbitrator must be taken in context and after a fulsome review
of the record. The statement was made once, during argument, and does not accurately
reflect the Arbitrator’s oft stated mandate that he needs to determine whether the
Respondent is entitled to any compensation. A more accurate representation of the
Arbitrator’s understanding is found on December 4, 2020, during the re-examination of
Applicants’ witness, Mr. Fellman, when the Arbitrator stated, “Mr. Fellman, I don’t know
that you do or don’t have to pay anything. I guess that’s what I have got to decide.”