Tag: dispute resolution
In the estates regime, mediations occur regularly, particularly in Toronto, where mediations are a mandatory part of the litigation, in accordance with Rule 75.1.02(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
A mediation is always an opportunity to attempt to settle a matter without resorting to costly and time consuming litigation. At mediation, the parties will each stay in separate rooms and the mediator (that is usually chosen by the parties to the litigation), will shuttle between the rooms seeking a more in-depth understanding of the parties’ positions as well as probing opportunities for settlement. Sometimes, before the mediation begins, the mediator will do an introduction to all the parties before they break off into separate rooms, explaining how the day will go.
An important aspect of mediation is the fact that a mediator has no decision-making power. He or she cannot force the parties to settle but can provide his or her opinion on the issues. As such, settlement at mediation can only be reached upon the agreement of the parties themselves.
Another means of dispute resolution (other than litigation) that is not often resorted to in estate litigation, is arbitration. Before agreeing to attend an arbitration, however, it is important to consider whether this form of dispute resolution would be helpful in the particular circumstances of the matter.
Arbitration, unlike mediation, is an adversarial dispute resolution process (similar to litigation) determined and controlled by a neutral third party. The arbitrator can make a final decision, called an “award”, contrary to a mediator, who cannot. The most significant aspect of arbitration, however, is that the courts generally do not interfere in a dispute that is subject to an arbitration agreement. As such, there is a risk that should a decision be made by an arbitrator, the court would then refuse to hear the matter further, leaving arbitration as the ultimate medium of resolving the particular matter.
Why is that so important?
In a situation where the parties have already engaged in settlement negotiations and there appears to be a gap between their respective positions, an arbitration may be worthwhile to pursue, particularly should litigation be untenable to the parties given the cost involved and/or if the matter in dispute does not involve a lot of money. In such a situation, a final arbitral award may bring finality and allow the parties to move on, particularly if the gap between the parties’ positions is not significant.
If, however, the parties had not yet engaged in negotiations and no offers to settle were made, pursuing arbitration may be a serious gamble. That is so because the issues to be arbitrated are set out by the parties and though the arbitration process is similar to traditional litigation, the arbitrator will not have an opportunity to hear all the relevant evidence. As a result, agreeing to arbitrate in a situation like that may cause prejudice to a client who may then not be able to appeal the “award” made by an arbitrator, outside of the regime put in place by the Arbitration Act, 1991, SO 1991, c 17.
Thanks for reading!
Find this blog interesting? Please consider these other related posts:
As lawyers, whether we are dealing with opposing parties, clients, or colleagues, we are often faced with having to say no at some point. Viewed as a negative response, the effect of saying no often leads to damaged or strained relationships.
Below is a brief overview of the rules that Mr. Latz espouses:
Rule #1 – Information is Key – at the outset it is important to determine your goals and then develop an information bargaining strategy. Ways to get and share information should be considered. Obtaining information is key before providing any response.
Rule #2 – Understand the Meaning of No – before saying no, Mr. Latz suggests that you consider the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Referred to as ‘BATNA’, this is widely used in negotiation theory to think about what your plan B is. Mr. Latz further suggests that, at this time, steps should be taken to strengthen this plan.
Rule #3 – Explain your No with Fair Objective Criteria – if you are going to say no, explain why. This should be based on fair and objective criteria such as market-value, precedent, professional standards, or tradition.
Rule #4 – Combine your No with a ‘Yesable’ Offer – Mr. Latz suggest that you design an offer-concession strategy. Considerations should be had to the timing of making such an offer.
Rule #5 – Control the Setting – if you are going to say no, consider the importance of the setting on the relationship. For instance, there may be value in having a face to face discussion as opposed to over the telephone.
Of course, this is just an overview of the issues Mr. Latz discussed. I encourage you to visit Mr. Latz’s website at www.negotiationinstitute.com for more information.
Consider this blog interesting? Please consider these other related blogs: