In another case cited by the wife, Pollitt v. Pollitt, 2011 ONSC 1186 at ¶ 6, after Czutrin J. determined that a lump sum was appropriate, he invited additional submissions about various variables that he felt needed to be considered. In this appeal before me, the wife seems to be relying on Pollitt v. Pollitt, to argue that the arbitrator engaged in “crystal ball gazing”, did not properly consider the variables that Czutrin J. identified, and selected an arbitrary retirement age for the husband not connected to the evidence.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.