What is the test for an arbitrator's approach to a fiduciary relationship issue?

As noted above, the arbitrator first considered whether the parties were in a fiduciary relationship and then considered whether he had jurisdiction to decide that issue. The petitioners characterize the arbitrator’s approach as an error in “legal methodology with respect to the sequence of judicial decision making”. It is in that way that the petitioners argue that the arbitrator did not decide the issue that was before him. In support, the petitioners cite London (City) Board of Education v. F.W.T.A.O. (1984), 16 L.A.C. (3d) 366, a decision of an Ontario labour arbitrator. The arbitrator in that case noted that it was the “general practice” of labour arbitrators in Ontario to determine jurisdictional issues before hearing the merits of an appeal. While such an approach may make sense in many cases, resulting in, among other things, an efficient use of both time and expense, the failure to approach a dispute in that fashion is not necessarily an error, never mind a material error.