What are the consequences of a Director's Delegate's Order and Order to quash or to set aside or quash the two orders and decisions?

The applicant now seeks by this application to set aside or quash the two orders and decisions because the arbitrator is said to have acted unreasonably in not accepting the conclusion of the expert witness called by the applicant as to what was a “reasonable period of time” and in failing to incorporate into s. 2(1.1)(e)(i) factors more predictive of outcome. The applicant also cites the decision of another arbitrator in Unifund Assurance Company v. Fletcher (not reported, Jan. 18, 2000) as conflicting with the subject decision on the “reasonable period of time” issue and thereby requiring judicial intervention to ensure consistency in the law. As to standard of review, the applicant submits that the arbitrator must be correct in the legal test she applied, while the ultimate conclusion and finding should be assessed on a reasonableness standard. The applicant asserts that the Director’s delegate erred in failing to review the arbitrator’s approach to s. 2(1.1)(e)(i) on a standard of correctness.