The appellant delivered his response to the respondent’s
reply submissions on or about November 15, 2011.
 On November 28, 2011, the arbitrator held a short oral
hearing. He gave the parties an opportunity to clarify a few
points. He also encouraged them to “re-tool” their offers and provide new offers in the first week of December.
 The parties provided amended offers in December 2011.
The respondent’s offer was severable, in that it was open to the
appellant to accept one or more of the parts, which would
resolve some of the issues. Furthermore, if the appellant’s offer
was also severable, it would be open to the arbitrator to select
only parts of each offer. However, the appellant presented a
non-severable offer. As a result, the arbitrator was not able to
pick and choose items but had to select one of the parties’ offers
in its entirety.
 The respondent modified her offer on January 3, 2012 to
reflect the changes in the Federal Child Support Guidelines,
 The arbitrator delivered his arbitration award on February 9, 2012. He selected the respondent’s offer.
 The parties provided written cost submissions.
 The arbitrator issued a supplementary arbitration award,
dated April 16, 2012, in which he corrected factual errors
in the original arbitration award and awarded costs to the
The Arbitration Award
 The arbitrator issued the arbitration award on February
9, 2012. He provided a supplementary arbitration award, dated
April 16, 2012, in which he made some corrections to the initial
award and addressed costs.
 The arbitrator described the parties’ respective positions
as follows: “To say there is a fundamental difference in the parties’ underlying assumptions and contentions is an understatement” (arbitration award, February 9, 2012, at para. 18).
 The arbitrator chose the respondent’s offer over the
appellant’s. In his opinion, her offer was more reasonable and
realistic in all of the circumstances.
Equalization of property
 As a result of the arbitrator having chosen the respondent’s offer, there was to be no equalization payment and the net
proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home would be divided
equally, less an amount for retroactive support.