offer selection in family law arbitrations to determine financial
and property issues.
The order appointing the arbitrator
 The order of Greer J., dated September 2, 2010, was
issued on consent. It referred the issues in the proceeding to the
arbitrator for mediation/arbitration. It further provided that the
mediator/arbitrator “shall have all power of a Superior Court
judge as between the parties”.
 The appellant submits that these powers include the
power to receive affidavits, conduct an oral hearing, hear sworn
testimony and provide the opportunity to cross-examine.
 In my opinion, the order of Greer J. granted these powers
to the arbitrator in the event he needed to use them. It does not
mean that the arbitrator was required to follow the procedures
of a Superior Court trial, nor does it mean that he was required
to use all the powers available to a Superior Court judge.
The requirement for an oral hearing
 There is no general requirement that a family law arbitration be conducted by way of an oral hearing, with sworn testimony and the opportunity to cross-examine and re-examine.
However, the appellant submits that this is a requirement
where the determination of credibility is central to the arbitrator’s decision. At the very least, he contends that the arbitrator
should have asked for affidavit evidence, with an opportunity
given to each party to cross-examine on the affidavits.
 The appellant’s income was central to the determination
of child and spousal support. The appellant submits that a
determination of his income depended on a determination of
 The appellant claimed his income was $62,000 for support
purposes. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that it
was in the range of $160,000 to $180,000.
 The appellant points to the decision of the Ontario Court
of Appeal in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch
(2011), 108 O.R. (3d) 1,  O.J. No. 5431, 2011 ONCA 764,
which deals with the amendments to Rule 20 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. These amendments enable judges to weigh evidence, assess credibility and draw inferences of fact, on the basis of affidavits, in deciding summary
 The court articulated the “full appreciation test” as a
benchmark for deciding whether a trial was required in the
interest of justice (Combined Air Mechanical, at para. 51):