The appellant argues that the arbitration did not comply
with the law for three reasons:
( i) final offer selection is ill-suited to resolve multiple issues;
( ii) the process did not include an opportunity to provide sworn
testimony or to cross-examine; and
( iii) the arbitrator’s reasons were inadequate.
 The respondent’s position is that the process used by the
arbitrator complied with the law. Furthermore, the appellant
agreed to the process and cannot now object to it.
 The parties married on September 29, 1990. They separated on May 15, 2009.
 They have two children, who are currently 19 and 12 years
of age. The older daughter resides primarily with the appellant.
The younger daughter spends equal time with each parent.
 The appellant is a general manager of Janovski Counter
Tops Ltd., a company which supplies laminate countertops. The
company is owned by the appellant’s father and uncle.
 The respondent worked as an investment customer service
representative at the Royal Bank until 1999, at which time she
stopped working in order to raise the children and manage the
household. The respondent resumed part-time employment at
some point after the parties’ separation.
 On August 28, 2009, the respondent issued an application in which she sought a divorce, sole custody of the children,
child support, spousal support and equalization of net family
 The appellant filed his answer on October 1, 2009.
 On January 13, 2010, the parties consented to an order
for a custody and access assessment. On August 27, 2010, Dr.
Butkowsky held a disclosure meeting with the parties to inform
them of his recommendations.
 The parties sold their matrimonial home on June 17,
2011. The net proceeds of sale were $852,924.83.
The Mediation/Arbitration Agreement
 On September 2, 2010, the parties consented to an
order referring all the issues to mediation/arbitration. Greer J.
appointed the mediator/arbitrator and provided that the
mediator/arbitrator would have all powers of a Superior Court