Background: Desert Properties Inc. ("Desert") sought to set aside an arbitrator's declaration related to a real estate development in Langley. The issue arose from a "Restated Subdivision and Servicing Agreement" (the "Servicing Agreement") where Desert agreed to sell land to G&T Martini Holdings Ltd. ("Martini") and handle subdivision, rezoning, and servicing. The Servicing Agreement included an arbitration clause.

Legal Issues: Desert argued that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement under s. 58(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, S.B.C. 2020, c. 2, particularly concerning land required for a sanitary pump station. The Township of Langley later required the pump station to be on Martini-owned land, not initially covered by the Servicing Agreement.

Arbitrator’s Decision: The arbitrator declared that Desert was required to compensate Martini if Martini dedicated its land for the pump station, interpreting this as within the scope of the Servicing Agreement. Desert challenged this, claiming the arbitrator relied improperly on a "Mutual Undertaking to Readjust," not subject to arbitration.

Held: Justice Edelmann ruled that the arbitrator acted within the scope of the arbitration agreement, interpreting the Servicing Agreement correctly regarding the compensation entitlement. The court dismissed Desert’s petition, emphasizing that any interpretation errors should be addressed under s. 59 by seeking leave at the Court of Appeal.

Costs: The petition was dismissed with costs awarded to G&T Martini Holdings Ltd. The total amount of costs was not specified in the document.