Is a court duty to re-weigh the evidence to determine whether it transparently and intelligibly corroborates the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Arbitrator?

This warning against re-weighing the evidence contradicts the assertion by HCRS that it is the court’s duty “to re-weigh the evidence to determine whether it transparently and intelligibly corroborates the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Arbitrator.” Cory J. also quoted, at 514, the following “salutary caution” of Lamer J. (as he then was) in Blanchard v. Control Data Canada Ltd, 1984 CanLII 27 (SCC), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 476, at 499: As I mentioned earlier, the arbitrator was said to have erred in two ways, namely by deciding that appellant's wrongful act did not justify dismissal and by imposing a penalty which was too light in view of the seriousness of the act. The court will only intervene if it is persuaded that the arbitrator made an unreasonable award. In coming to such a conclusion, the courts should always be mindful of the fact that an arbitrator is in a far better position to assess the impact of the award. It needs to be said again that administrative tribunals exist to provide solutions to disputes that can be best solved by a decision-making process other than that available in the courts. Often, too, the administrative "judge" is better trained and better informed on the area of his jurisdiction, and has access to information which more often than not does not find its way into the record submitted to the court. To this must be added the fact that the arbitrator saw and heard the parties.