The appellant relies on the requirement for reasons
articulated in R. v. Sheppard,  1 S.C.R. 869,  S.C.J.
No. 30, 2002 SCC 26, at para. 24:
At the trial level, the reasons justify and explain the result. The losing party
knows why he or she has lost. Informed consideration can be given to
grounds for appeal. Interested members of the public can satisfy themselves
that justice has been done, or not, as the case may be.
 This principle has been followed in numerous cases since
then, including judicial decisions in family law cases (Young v.
Young (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 112,  O.J. No. 67, 168 O.A.C.
 Family law arbitrators are also required to provide adequate reasons (Likins v. MacKenzie, at paras. 25, 38). However,
in determining whether an arbitrator’s reasons are adequate it
is important to keep in mind the features that distinguish arbitrations from court proceedings.
 Parties choose the arbitration route, at least in part,
because it will be less costly and speedier than litigating
through the court system. In this case, the parties agreed that
the arbitrator would provide brief reasons, presumably because
lengthy reasons have the potential to add expense and delay.
 Another distinguishing feature is that, unlike the court
system, family law arbitrations are generally private proceedings. Indeed, parties may choose the arbitration route because
of their desire for privacy. Thus, an arbitrator’s reasons are not
required in order for members of the public to satisfy themselves that justice has been done, nor are they required to
stand as precedents, as is the case with decisions emanating
from the courts.
 Nonetheless, an arbitrator’s reasons are important so
that the losing party knows why he or she has lost and for the
purpose of appeal. Reasons are also mandated by the Arbitration
Act. The reasons may be brief, but they must be sufficient to
explain why the arbitrator reached his or her conclusion.
 In this case, the arbitrator concluded that the respondent’s offer more closely conformed to the statutory objectives,
jurisprudential principles and the evidence. In reaching this
conclusion, he reviewed the pluses and minuses of each party’s
offer with respect to each of the issues before him, that is,
property, child support and spousal support. In so doing, the
arbitrator considered both the evidence and the relevant legal
principles, in particular, the factors and principles for the
determination of support.
 In my opinion, while the arbitrator’s reasons are
not lengthy (in accordance with the parties’ agreement), they