Each party was given an opportunity to present his or her case
and respond to the case of the other party. There is no suggestion of bias on the part of the arbitrator.
 The appellant relies on the decision of the Ontario Court
of Appeal in Berry v. Berry,  O.J. No. 5006, 2011 ONCA
705 in support of his proposition that the process of final offer
selection is not permissible.
 Berry v. Berry was a mobility case. Juriansz J.A. determined that the trial judge had committed both an error of fact
and an error of law in seeing the task as choosing between parenting plans. Similarly, on the application for a stay of the order
pending appeal ( O.J. No. 6248, 2010 CarswellOnt 10983,
 W.D.F.L. 45, 7 R.F.L. (7th) 29 (C.A.), at para. 3), Rosenberg J.A. expressed concern that the trial judge felt he was faced
with a simple binary decision of picking one of the parties’ parenting plans.
 There are two difficulties with applying the Berry decision
to the arbitration in this case: it was a review of the decision of a
judge, not an arbitrator; and it involved a determination of the
best interests of the child. I agree that it may be open to challenge an arbitrator’s use of final offer selection to determine custody and access on the basis that the process might not have
provided an adequate means to determine the best interests of a
child. However, in the case at hand, the final offer selection process was only used to determine financial issues.
 The appellant does not take the position that final offer
selection can never be used in family law arbitration. He argues
that while such a process could be used where there is a discrete
issue in dispute, it is ill-suited to a situation in which there are
 The arbitrator appears to have recognized that the process was not ideal once he received the parties’ initial offers
and submissions. He provided the parties with the option of
dealing with the offers on an issue-by-issue basis or selecting
an option between the offers. The appellant clearly indicated
he did not want to vary the process. While the respondent provided a severable offer, the appellant did not. He confirmed
that the arbitrator had no choice but to select one offer in its
 While I might agree that the process is not ideal for dealing with multiple issues, it is not my job, on an appeal on a question of law, to decide which arbitration process would have been
the most suitable one for resolving the parties’ dispute. Rather,
my job is to determine whether the chosen process is contrary
to law. I cannot conclude that the law precludes the use of final