The Court held that where an adjudicator erroneously concluded that a respondent's extension of time claim was not included in its payment schedule — contrary to the adjudicator's own reasons which quoted the relevant passage — and thereby refused to consider the respondent's submissions on that claim, this constituted a denial of procedural fairness and jurisdictional error warranting quashing of the determination. The Court distinguished cases such as John Holland and Perform, holding that while an adjudicator's erroneous but reasonable determination that a submission was not 'duly made' is not reviewable, a determination that is irrational or without foundation crosses into jurisdictional error. The Court left open whether YTO Construction permits partial severance of adjudication determinations, instead adopting the Emergency Services approach of granting relief on conditions including that the plaintiff accept the unchallenged portion of the determination and pay half the adjudicator's fees.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.