his decision. Rather, the appellant argues that the arbitrator did
not follow Ontario law with respect to the process employed in
the arbitration. He makes three basic points:
(1) The process of final offer selection was contrary to law
because the arbitrator had to determine multiple issues.
(2) The process was contrary to law because the decision was
not based on sworn testimony and cross-examination.
(3) The arbitrator’s reasons were inadequate.
 In support of his position, the appellant relies on the
( i) the court process;
( ii) the order that appointed the arbitrator;
( iii) the law on when an oral hearing, sworn testimony and an
opportunity for cross-examination are required;
( iv) the parties’ mediation/arbitration agreement; and
( v) the law on the adequacy of reasons.
 Furthermore, the appellant submits that the parties are
unable to contract out of the legal requirements. Therefore, the
parties’ agreement to the process cannot make legal an otherwise illegitimate process.
 The respondent submits, firstly, that the process was not
contrary to the law. Secondly, the appellant is precluded from
challenging the process in view of his agreement to the process
and his failure to object at the time.
 The material facts are not in dispute: both parties agreed
to a process whereby the arbitrator would select one of the parties’ offers in its entirety; each of the parties had legal counsel;
and each party had an opportunity to provide written submissions, respond to the other party’s written submissions and
attend a brief oral hearing. There is no suggestion of inequality
of bargaining power or duress.
 There was no oral testimony or opportunity to cross-examine, nor did either party request such an opportunity.
There was no sworn evidence, with the exception of each party’s financial statement. In addition to each party’s financial