The respondent/appellant (Mr. Petersoo) appealed an arbitration award concerning custody, mobility, and imputed income, and a costs award.
He argued procedural unfairness regarding late notice of mobility issues, misapprehension of evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, and failure to consider children's views and the maximum contact principle.
The court found fundamental procedural unfairness in the arbitration regarding parenting issues due to lack of proper notice on mobility, setting aside that part of the award.
The court upheld the financial issues award, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's imputation of income due to Mr. Petersoo's disclosure failings.
Leave to appeal the costs award was denied as it involved questions of fact, not law.
The parenting issues were remitted for a new arbitration before a different arbitrator, and interim parenting arrangements were ordered, increasing Mr. Petersoo's parenting time.
