Can a review committee's failure to ask for input from the four curlers whose curling freedom was at risk be cured by a subsequent decision by an appeal body?

The review committee erroneously did not ask for input from the four curlers whose curling freedom was at risk. However, a breach of the duty to act fairly can be cured by a subsequent fair decision by an appeal body: Harelkin v. University of Regina, 1979 CanLII 18 (SCC), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561. Here, the applicants had notice of the appeal committee hearing, and were permitted to make submissions. This raises the question of whether the appeal committee process cured the defects of the review committee. Was the appeal committee hearing de novo?