The main property issue was the appellant’s interest in
the business in which he worked and which was owned by his
father and uncle.
 The arbitrator accepted the appellant’s position that he
had no legal interest in the business and that he had no sources
of income other than the business. However, the arbitrator was
of the opinion that the appellant, nonetheless, had an “interest”
in the business, which provided him with access to additional
funds. In reaching this conclusion, the arbitrator took into consideration the amount spent by the family and the family’s ability to retire the mortgage.
 The arbitrator agreed with the respondent that the appellant’s claimed loans were statute-barred and that the likelihood
of the loans ever being called was improbable, if non-existent.
(The supplementary award indicated that the appellant may
have abandoned his claims on certain loans.)
 The arbitrator found that the credits claimed by the
appellant were, by and large, inappropriate and somewhat
speculative, “if capable of proof at all were the case to be heard
in full” (at para. 28). (A question was raised in the supplementary award as to whether the appellant had claimed certain
 The arbitrator also found that the respondent’s net
family property statement reasonably omitted the appellant’s
claimed indebtedness as well as any interest he might have in
Child and spousal support
 The arbitrator concluded that the respondent’s offer with
respect to both spousal and child support was more consistent
with legal principles as well as the true underlying matrix in
 The parties’ different positions on support turned largely
on their divergent positions with respect to the appellant’s
annual income: the appellant claimed an income of $62,000,
while the respondent claimed the appellant’s actual income was
between $160,000 and $180,000.
 The arbitrator stated that the appellant’s income “may
well be closer, on a balance of probabilities” to the range proposed by the respondent (at para. 33). He noted that the appellant admitted certain additional income, by way of bonus income
and tax-free benefits, both of which required a gross-up.
 In the opinion of the arbitrator, the respondent’s position
on spousal support better reflected the factors and objectives
contained in the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.). In