The threshold for a finding of real or perceived bias is a high one, since it calls into question both the personal integrity of the family arbitrator or parenting coordinator and the integrity of the administration of justice.
The grounds for proving a reasonable apprehension of bias leading to their removal must be substantial, and the onus is on the party seeking to disqualify a family arbitrator or parenting coordinator to bring forward evidence to satisfy the test (see A.T. Kearney Ltd. v. Harrison, [2003] O.J. No. 438 (Ont. S.C.J.))
The presumption of impartiality is high (see Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2003 SCC 45, [2003] 2 SCR 259).
The inquiry is objective and requires a realistic and practical review of all the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable person (see Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., 1976 CanLII 2 (SCC)).
Your poor experience, or feeling of being treated unfairly, will not be adequate. The courts will not entertain your subjective view of the family arbitrator or parenting coordinator in making such determination (see Dufferin v. Morrison Hershfield, 2022 ONSC 3485).
Your challenge may be successful if you can marshal evidence of bias beyond a mere suspicion (see G.W.L. Properties Lt. v. W.R. Grace & Co. of Canada Ltd., 1992 CanLII 934 (BC CA)).
When considering bias, context matters and any review a family arbitrator’s or parenting coordinator’s conduct, language and written communications must be considered in context (see Telesat Canada v. Boeing Satellite Systems International, Inc., 2010 ONSC 4023).
For a thorough review of the law on the reasonable apprehension of bias leading to the removal of an arbitrator, you may read the case of Aroma Franchise Company Inc. et al. v. Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc. et al. CanLII2023 ONSC 1827 located at:
Editorial note: This article was first published on LinkedIn in September 2025 and is republished here for reference.
Share this article on: