This case is not one where there are allegations that the umpire considered information of one party without the knowledge of the other, or that he was not impartial or considered information about one of the appraisers that may have coloured his decision. The facts of this case are quite different from those in Peace Hills General Insurance Company v. Doolaege, 2005 ABQB 217 (“Peace Hills”) where the umpire received correspondence from one appraiser without the other’s knowledge, and the other appraiser was not provided with the correspondence which included inflammatory comments about the appraiser who is given little, if any, opportunity to respond. Also in that case, following the hearing, the umpire received and considered additional submissions from one appraiser without the knowledge of or any response from the other, and changed his decision to reflect those submissions. That is a significantly different set of facts from those in this case.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.