3. Richmont Mines Inc. v. Teck Resources Limited, 2018 BCCA 452 dealt with contractual interpretation.
Summary: “ The appellant challenges the order of a chamber judge granting leave to appeal an arbitral award on a question of law alone pursuant to s. 31 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator had interpreted an historic contract with respect to the extent of the appellant’s royalty over certain mineral claims. Held: appeal allowed. The chambers judge erred in granting the respondent leave to appeal by failing to follow the analytical framework from Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp. 2014 SCC 53 and Teal Cedar Products Lit. v. British Columbia, 2017 SCC 32. Contractual interpretation generally gives rise only to questions of mixed fact and law, except in limited Circumstances that do not apply in this case. If the arbitrator erred, the error raised at most a question of mixed fact and law and not a question of law alone.”