In what circumstances will an arbitrator be found to have misconduct during the course of an arbitration?

In Canada the same rule has been followed in a number of decisions. In Powis v. city of Vancouver (1916) 23 B.C.R. 180, one of the arbitrators misconducted himself during the course of the hearing by passing a note to the solicitor for one of the parties. Counsel for the other party, though aware of the misconduct, and aware that under the circumstances it would void the award, nevertheless chose to continue. When the award was unsatisfactory he raised the defect on a motion to set aside the award. At p. 184 MacDonald J. cited the decision in Bignall v. Gale supra and said: "The City, by this course, then determined to take its chance that the award might, even with its position perhaps still endangered as to the conduct of the arbitrator, be favourable; in other words, that the amount to be allowed would not be unsatisfactory. Apparently the amount of the award, as given by the majority of the board, is unsatisfactory, and it is only because the amount is thus in excess of the expectations of the City, or its adviser, that, in my opinion, this application was launched. I do not think that a party to an arbitration can pursue a course of this kind and expect then to have its objections utilized for the purpose of setting aside an award. It cannot, in other words, blow hot and cold, at one period of the arbitration satisfied to await the result, with a knowledge of all the objections that are not being urged being in existence, and then afterwards, when the award is unsatisfactory, proceed to set it aside."