Final-Offer Family Arbitration — Finality Is the Point: Lessons from Kohut v. Yagelniski

Author: SiLaw Group Family Lawyers
Published: Aug 10, 2026

---

When a family law dispute goes to arbitration, how final is the award? A recent decision of the BC Supreme Court, Kohut v. Yagelniski, 2026 BCSC 714, answers that question about as clearly as any case could. The court dismissed an appeal that raised 14 separate grounds, and it confirmed that spouses who choose a "final offer selection" arbitration get exactly what they signed up for: a fast, binding result with very little room for second-guessing.

What is final offer selection arbitration?

In a typical family arbitration, the arbitrator works much like a judge in a private trial. They hear evidence, make findings of fact, apply the law, and deliver a written award with reasons.

Final offer selection — sometimes nicknamed "baseball" arbitration — is different. Each spouse prepares one complete, final settlement package covering every issue. The arbitrator must pick one package or the other, exactly as written. There is no blending of the two offers and no adjusting of terms. That all-or-nothing design pushes both sides toward reasonable positions, because an aggressive offer risks losing outright to a more balanced one.

In Kohut, the parties went a step further. As BC's Family Law Act allows, they agreed the arbitrator would give no reasons for his selection. Before they committed, the arbitrator sent both sides a memo describing the process. It warned plainly that "the absence of reasons will make appeals impossible."

What happened in the case

The former spouses had settled their parenting issues, but large financial questions remained: property division, spousal support, and child support. Their arbitration began in July 2024 with a week of affidavit evidence and cross-examination. At the end of that week, instead of continuing with three more scheduled days of evidence, they agreed to switch to final offer selection.

Each side delivered a final offer, drafted in the form of a final order, in October 2024. Neither accepted the other's. In February 2025, the arbitrator selected the husband's offer as the award — without reasons, just as the parties had agreed.

The wife appealed to the BC Supreme Court. Her 14 grounds took aim at the property split, the dismissal of her support claims, the arbitrator's authority, and the fairness of the process.

What the court said

Justice Wilson dismissed the appeal in its entirety, with costs. The reasons show how narrow the openings really are.

An appeal needs something to review. The Family Law Act allows an appeal of a family arbitration award on questions of law or of mixed law and fact (s. 19.19). But this arbitrator made no findings of fact and wrote no analysis a court could examine. His only task was to select the offer he considered fairer. The court declined to reverse-engineer a decision that was never written, and it held the wife could not show any error of law in the arbitrator preferring one offer over the other (paras. 63–65, 75–76).

The set-aside grounds are limited. Section 19.18 lets a court set aside an award for problems such as bias, the denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, fraud, or an arbitrator acting outside their authority. The court considered those complaints on their merits — including the objection that the winning offer was more favourable to the husband than his opening position — and rejected them all. Nothing in the agreed process stopped either side from delivering a final offer that moved away from earlier positions (paras. 82–92).

Even flawed terms did not undo the award. Two terms in the winning offer set the husband's income for child support at a fixed ceiling and put off any review until 2028. The court agreed those terms are unenforceable, because child support is the right of the child and cannot be frozen by agreement. But under s. 19.20(2), only the offending provisions fail. The award as a whole still stands (paras. 94–101).

Sympathy is not a ground of appeal. The judge accepted that the outcome was likely not what the wife expected. The process, however, unfolded exactly as the parties had agreed, so the appeal could not succeed (para. 160).

You can read the decision on the BC courts website.

The practical lesson: choose finality on purpose

Kohut is not a warning against family arbitration. Finality is the feature many separating spouses want most — a private process, a firm end date, and a result that will not be re-litigated for years. The lesson is to choose that finality deliberately:

• Understand the trade. Final offer selection, especially without reasons, exchanges the appellate safety net for speed and certainty. Both are real.
• Treat your final offer as your one chance. It should be complete, lawful, and balanced enough that an arbitrator could fairly choose it.
• Draft support terms carefully. Provisions that conflict with child support law will not be enforced, though their presence will not necessarily unravel the award.
• Get advice at every fork. That includes before you sign an arbitration agreement, and again before you change the process partway through.

Family arbitration, close to home

Family arbitration is available across BC under the Family Law Act, and it can resolve property, support, and parenting issues without a courtroom. SiLaw Group offers arbitration in-house as part of our dispute resolution services, and we can help you decide whether it fits your situation — or represent you within a process that is already underway.

If you are weighing arbitration, mediation, or court, learn more about arbitration and Book a free consultation.

This post is legal information, not legal advice.