In Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992), 3 Cal. 4th 1, our Supreme Court made it clear that the grounds for judicial review of a contractual arbitration award are extremely limited. Under Moncharsh, we cannot review the merits of the controversy, the arbitrator's reasoning, or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the award. (Id. at p. 11.) Even "an error of law apparent on the face of the award that causes substantial injustice does not provide grounds for judicial review." (Id. at p. 33.) Code of Civil Procedure sections 1286.2 and 1286.6 provide the only grounds for challenging an arbitration award. (3 Cal. 4th at p. 33.) In reviewing a judgment confirming an arbitration award, we must accept the trial court's findings of fact if substantial evidence supports them, and we must draw every reasonable inference to support the award. (Luster v. Collins (1993) 15 Cal. App. 4th 1338, 1344-1345 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215; Ikerd v. Warren T. Merrill & Sons (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 1833, 1841 12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 398.)