Source: http://cfcj-fcjc.org/alternative-dispute-resolution-inventory
Timestamp: 2017-06-29 02:20:20
Document Index: 82609487

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 19', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 9']

Alternative Dispute Resolution Inventory | Canadian Forum on Civil Justice Skip to main content
Alternative Dispute Resolution Inventory
Inventory of Reforms > Alternative Dispute Resolution
| Case/Settlement Conferences
Year Title Jurisdiction Body Responsible Court Criteria and Methods of Evaluation Description Description of Reforms Development Links to Publications Publications Purpose Related Reforms Results Status Subjects Timeline 1971 Provincial Court of Alberta, Civil (Small Claims Court) Alberta
Small claims court with a monetary jurisdiction of $25 000, employing pre-trial settlement conferences and mandatory mediation.
The Provincial Court of Alberta is a statutorily enacted Court intended to be an expeditious and inexpensive forum to access civil justice. Although the Court must apply established legal principles, it is not bound by the laws of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings and may admit any oral or written evidence that it, in its discretion, considers proper, whether admissible in other judicial proceedings or not, subject to claims of privilege under the law of evidence or any other evidence which is inadmissible by any other act. Accordingly, the procedural issues put before it are often determined according to principles of fairness or equity and not necessarily according to the strict rules of evidence as used in other courts. Litigants may be unrepresented, represented by agents, or by lawyers.
There are no formal Rules of Court governing the Court's procedure. The Act sets out most of the procedural requirements. Where the Act on regulations do not provide for specific practice or procedure, the Court may apply or modify the Alberta Rules of Court (Queen's Bench Rules) as needed. ...]
Hunt McDonald at 1.
Cases in the Court are heard by provincially appointed judges.
The monetary jurisdiction is $25 000.
Pre-trial conferences may be used to encourage parties to settle, or identify key issues if settlement is not achieved.
Cases may be referred to mandatory mediation sessions.
Provincial Court Act, External Link R.S.A. 2000, c. P-31.Sandra L. Hunt MacDonald, "Civil court practice in Alberta = La pratique dans les tribunaux civils de l'Alberta", Into the Future: The Agenda for Civil Justice Reform / Vers le futur: ordre du jour de la réforme de la justice civile, Montréal, QC, 2006Alberta Courts, Provincial Court - Civil (Small Claims Court)External Link (webpage) (Alberta Courts, 2010). Permanent implementation
Provincial Court of Alberta, Civil
Modern Provincial Court established
Most recent increase of monetary jurisdiction, to $25 000
1972 New Brunswick Court Social Worker Program New Brunswick
CSW's were evaluated as individual employees, with annual performance reviews. The Domestic Legal Aid program was evaluated in 1996, and was found to deliver services as intended. However, it was also found to be in need of better abuse assessment procedures, which were implemented in consultation with one of the evaluators.
New Brunswick Department of Justice program providing conciliation services in order to reduce conflict and minimize litigation.
For those who find themselves dealing with separation and divorce - whether before, during, or long after - Court Social Workers can provide counselling, information, and conciliation services for a wide range of issues, including parenting after separation, custody and access, child and spousal support, and division of simple and routine property and debts. They are also responsible for providing referrals for those who need, and are eligible for, the legal services of a Family Solicitor.
Court Social Workers can help people gain a better understanding of their situation and make plans for living apart that are fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of their children. Whenever appropriate, and if both parties are willing to participate in mediation, they can act as mediators to help the parties negotiate agreements that can then be made legal - thus making expensive legal action unnecessary. As mediators, they do not take sides. When mediation is not appropriate because of a history of abuse in the parties' relationship, they can offer other kinds of help that will not compromise a person's safety or security, such as special settlement services or a referral to a Family Solicitor for legal services (Webpage).
There were eight judicial districts where CSWs were located: Bathurst, Campbellton, Edmundston, Fredericton, Miramichi, Moncton, Saint John, and Woodstock. All CSW's were located in court services offices adjacent to courts. They also had private offices for interviewing clients for assessments. All were situated alongside other court services, for example Support Enforcement Services. Some had receptionist staff, but most did not. Clients were generally seen by appointment, but some walk-ins were accommodated. CSWs worked in partnership with the Domestic Legal Aid Family Solicitors who were also located nearby.
The CSW program was established to address the increase in clients seeking divorces. The program then shifted towards providing conciliation services in order to reduce conflict and minimize litigation.
After the creation of Unified Family Courts in 1982, the CSW program continued providing conciliation services in conjunction with the Court of Queen's Bench Family Division. In 1988, CSW's formally began offering family mediation services after funding for mediation training was provided by the Department of Justice. Eventually, the CSW program became a part of the Domestic Legal Aid Program, however, retained its separate funding and is a service provided to everyone (not just those who satisfy legal aid requirements). Furthermore, the breadth of services provided by CSW's was increased. Screening for domestic abuse situations was incorporated into the CSW program, and referral services addressing those issues were added. In 1996 onwards, extensive training in child support guidelines and calculation software (Childview) were incorporated. In 2001, paralegal type services were shifted away from CSW's to the solicitor assistants in legal aid.
In April 2009, the program was eliminated as part of budget cuts in the province. Prior to its elimination, CSW services resulted in 1300-1700 cases avoiding litigation.
Victor Boudreau, New Brunswick budget 2009-2010: Leadership for a stronger economy (Government of New Brunswick, 2009).Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Elimination of Family Court's Social Arm Will be Costly To New Brunswick (March 20, 2009). [ACSW]Benjamin Shingler, Court social workers cut panned Telegraph-Journal (April 7, 2009). [Telegraph] Elimination of CSW Program
The program was eliminated in April of 2009, following the announcement of the provincial budget, as part of an attempt to reduce the budget by 5%. It is estimated cutting the program will save the province about $900,000.
Those seeking legal aid services related to marital separation and divorce matters will now have to apply directly to the Legal Aid Services Commission, without the assistance of a CSW.
Response to Elimination of CSW Program
"The elimination of this service goes against the international trend to invest in the social arm of family courts," said Elsie Hambrook [Chairperson of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women]. "The importance of favouring non-adversarial resolution of family disputes whenever possible is increasingly recognized. Mediation and the other services provided by the court social workers complement the judicial side of the court - they help people gain a better understanding of their situation and make plans for living apart that are in the best interests of their children, and often divert disputes from court hearings altogether. Some studies suggest issues settled by a couple through such means, not decided by a judge, "stay settled" longer."
"The court social workers offer a specialized service that is very valuable, especially to mothers facing separation. I fear that we will be reinventing this service in a few years, because it is a low-cost way to help families navigate and settle issues during the difficult time of a separation. This issue bears further study before the cuts go ahead" (ACSW).
The Liberal government's decision to eliminate court social workers will hurt the province's most vulnerable people, critics say...
Rosella Melanson, executive director of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, said eliminating the program will end up costing the province in the long term. She said that, with the disappearance of court social workers, families will either live with unsolved issues, line up for legal aid or try to represent themselves in court, often without getting a result that is up to standard. "It's the elimination of the social arm of family court," said Melanson, who worked as a court social worker in the 1970s. "With the disappearance of court social workers, it seems that will reduce the non-adversarial settlement of these issues."
Elaine Bell, spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, said court social workers are not the only ones who provide mediation services. "More family lawyers are using a collaborative approach to resolving family law issues," she said in an email. "In all of the judicial districts formerly served by court social workers, other mediation services may also be found" (Telegraph).
Program Eliminated as of April 2009
New Brunswick Justice and Consumer Affairs
Court Social Worker (CSW) Program established
Unified Family Court established throughout New Brunswick
CSW formally commenced mediation services
CSW became central to the Domestic Legal Aid program
CSW's started to handle child support issues
Paralegal work shifted to the family solicitor assistants, freeing up more time for CSW's to focus on mediation and referral services
CSW program planned elimination announced in the provincial budget
CSW program eliminated
1984 Manitoba Justice Child and Family Services Division: Family Conciliation Manitoba
consultation with other agencies, professionals and the public. 2007/2008 Annual Report at 81
Brief Consultation Service offers brief consultation for families and children in a shorter time frame, focusing on the input of children ages 11 to 17 in custody/access matters that affect them. Additional information is provided in a consultative format for issues related to time sharing, child developmental needs, parental communication, and other aspects of parenting plans for children of all ages. Court-Ordered Assessments provide comprehensive family evaluations, professional opinions, and recommendations to the court concerning the best interests of children in custody, access, and guardianship matters. This process serves as a vehicle for the resolution of custody/access/ guardianship disputes by providing information that can be used in settlement meetings, lawyer negotiations, or litigation as circumstances warrant. It serves parents, children, lawyers, and the court by recommending courses of action and available resources that may reduce parental/family conflict, which is harmful to children. Mediation is a structured, short-term intervention to assist families undergoing separation/divorce in developing a parenting plan, to maintain a continuing relationship among children, parents, and extended family, and to protect children from parental conflict. This is a preferred intervention for resolving custody/access conflicts. Parents may also choose to mediate financial issues arising from their separation regarding child support, spousal support, and division of marital property. This comprehensive co-mediation is offered in the Winnipeg Region, and on a pilot basis in the Eastman Region. It is called co-mediation because a lawyer mediator and a family relations counsellor are both involved in the process. Conciliation Counselling is a short-term, separation-related counselling focused on parents‟ and childrens‟ adjustment to family reorganization after separation/divorce. Conciliation counselling is also often used for special situations where a quick response may be required or in services such as Intake and Grand Relations. Information/Referral is an intake service. Individuals and families are assisted in addressing issues and identifying possible solutions, informed of community and government services that may be appropriate to their situation, and are referred accordingly. They are also assessed for mediation and other Family Conciliation services and provided with advice and referrals. Parent Information Program, “For the Sake of the Children," educates and focuses parents on the needs of their children in the context of separation and divorce. It is designed to help all separating parents, and is an essential first step to mediation. The program is mandatory for all parties seeking custody of or access to children through the court, including grandparents, other family members and significant others. Children's Therapeutic Group “Caught in the Middle”, assists children ages 8 to 12 who are experiencing trauma, loss, and family reorganization after their parents separate or divorce. This 10-week session is designed for children living in families experiencing severe parental conflict. Just for Teens, is an information group for children ages 12 to 17 whose parents have separated. This group program is aimed at helping this age group to adjust to their parents‟ separation/divorce and deals with family changes, feelings and grief, legal questions, questions facing teens and how to survive the separation of their parents. Peer support is an important aspect of this service. Grand Relations, a range of services for improving access between children and extended family or significant others. These services were developed in response to an amendment in The Child and Family Services Act , and includes the mandatory “For the Sake of the Children” parent information program; First Choice – a pilot of an Early Neutral Evaluation service for families requiring a court-ordered assessment; and the Grandparent Advisor. Research was also undertaken to identify best practices/models of alternative dispute resolution services for Aboriginal people to explore options in the possible development of a made-in-Manitoba model. Grandparent Advisor Service was established in December 2006. A Family Conciliation Counsellor is dedicated to provide direct service to grandparents who are seeking access with their grandchildren, as well as to facilitate a monthly support group to assist them through this process. The First Choice Pilot Project provides a confidential hybrid service of assessment, mediation, and counselling to help parents or extended family members to resolve their custody and access issues without going to trial. The service utilizes gender balanced teams and includes the parties‟ lawyers in the process. The service involves two stages – assessment and mediation. The parties are provided with a preview of what a court-ordered assessment would likely focus on if the case proceeded to court. The team makes recommendations regarding custody and access arrangements based on the best interests of the children. The service provides an opportunity to settle custody and access disputes outside of court using the input of legal counsel. First Choice became a confidential service midway through the year, based on a recommendation from the initial evaluation of the project in 2009/10. The piloted phase of this project ended on March 31, 2011, when First Choice gained permanent program status. Staff presentations on children and divorce to community organizations, and participation in various community and government committees. Presentations by the Grandparent Advisor to grandparent groups and others interested in Grand Relations services. 2011/2012 Annual Report at 90-91
Manitoba Department of Family Services and Housing annual report 2009/2010Family Conciliation Services WebsiteManitoba Department of Family Services and Housing annual report 2007/2008 The objective of Family Conciliation Services "is to ensure the availability of a range of high-quality dispute resolution services to families disrupted by separation or divorce, and where ongoing parenting of the children is of primary concern" (2007/2008 Annual Report at 81).
Information and referral – 2,268 clients. Parent Information Program – “For the Sake of the Children” – 6,652 clients. Conciliation counselling services – 5 clients. Mediation services – 380 families Court-Ordered Assessments – 186. Brief Consultation Services – 81 families. Children‟s Therapeutic Groups – 26 children. Grand Relations Services – 37 families regarding access between grandparents and their grandchildren, 195 information calls, plus 20 regular attendees at the monthly Grandparent Support Group.
Amendment made to the Child Welfare Act which included a provision for five family counselors for the court
Family Conciliation Services transferred to the Department of Social Development
Unified Family Court established and rule changes made to the Court of Queen's Bench Act dealing with procedures regarding the Family Conciliation Service
1992 BC Child Protection Mediation Program British Columbia
Child, Family and Community Service Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46, s. 22. [CFCSA]Mediation in Child Protection Cases (webpage) (BC Dispute Resolution Office, 2004).Dispute Resolution Office - Child Protection Mediation ProgramExternal Link (webpage) (BC Ministry of Attorney General, 2008).What is Child Protection Mediation?Child Protection Mediation in BC One of the main purposes behind the Child Protection Mediation Program was to save time in child protection cases and reduce the number of cases that went to contested protection hearings. Mediation was seen as a tool by which to achieve more effective decisions that are responsive to the needs of children as opposed to the traditional adversarial process.
Child protection mediation piloted in Victoria
Facilitated Planning Meeting Project pilot program in Surrey
1993 BC Small Claims Court Settlement Conference (Rule 7) British Columbia
Small Claims Court Rule of Court introducing mandatory settlement/trial conferences.
Settlement conferences are mandatory in all non-pilot project registries, for all cases except motor vehicle accident cases in which only liability for property damage is disputed (Rule 7(2))...
Typically, a settlement/trial conference is scheduled for half an hour before a judge in a conference room at the courthouse. The judge at the settlement/trial conference will not be the judge at trial, if a trial is necessary.
At the settlement/trial conference, the parties will sit at a table with a judge. The judge will say a few words and ask each party to give a brief summary of their case. The judge may then lead both the claimant and defendant into a discussion on what, if anything, the parties can agree on. If the parties agree on the final result, the judge will make the order. However, the parties may agree on some issues and leave issues in dispute to be resolved at trial. The judge will assess how much time is required for trial (Small Claims at 28-29).
All parties, with or without legal representation, must attend the settlement conference (r. 7(4)).
Each party must bring all relevant documents and reports to a settlement conference (r. 7(5)), whether the party intends to use them at trial or not.
The judge has wide powers to: mediate any disputed issues; decide on any issues that do not require evidence; make a payment order or other appropriate order in the terms agreed to by the parties; set a trial date, if necessary; discuss evidence requirements and trial procedures if a trial is necessary; order production of documents; dismiss a claim, counterclaim, reply, or third party notice if it is determined to be without reasonable grounds, or it discloses no triable issue, or it is frivolous or an abuse of the court's process (r. 7(14)).
Small Claims Rules, B.C. Reg. 261/93.Online Help GuideSmall Claims Procedure, Law Students' Legal Advice Manual (Victoria: Law Students' Legal Advice Program, 2008). [Small Claims] The purpose of a Settlement Conference is to encourage the litigants to settle the lawsuit and avoid the time and cost of a trial.
British Columbia Small Claims Court
Rule 7 came into effect
1993 Tax Court Status Hearings (Rule 125) Federal
Tax Court of Canada Rules, r. 125.Chief Justice Donald G.H. Bowman, Practice Note No. 7: Status Hearing (Amended) (Tax Court of Canada, September 23,Proposed rules and amendments with respect to Settlement Offers, Lead Cases and Litigation Process Conferences - Note 17Proposed Amendments to Rules The purpose of the status hearing is to facilitate the resolution of matters before the Tax Court to decrease the cost of litigation.
Rule 125 introduced
1995, 1999, 2004, 2010
1995 Saskatchewan Queen's Bench Mandatory Mediation Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and Attorney General's Dispute Resolution Office
Court of Queen's Bench - Civil
An extensive study of the Mandatory Mediation Program using qualitative and quantitative measures was undertaken in 2003, Learning from Experience. The goals of the study were:
To evaluate how far the mediation program in the Queens' Bench meets the needs of the people of Saskatchewan (focusing on discussions with client users);
To assess the impact of the mandatory mediation program on civil litigation practice in Saskatchewan (focusing on discussions with members of the Bar);
To determine the efficiency of the Queen's Bench program (from available program statistics).
Mandatory mediation in non-family civil actions which takes place after the filing of pleadings and prior to any other steps in the litigation.
Section 54.2 relates to civil mediation. After the close of pleadings in a contested action or matter that is not a family law proceeding, the local Registrar arranges for a mediation session, and the parties attend the mediation session before taking any further step in the action or matter. These sessions must occur after the close of pleadings and before any other step in the proceedings. Experienced mediators are utilized. Since the initiation of the program, there has been a gradual increase over the years in the per cent cases resolved through civil mediation. In 2007-2008, 53% of civil cases were resolved following mandatory civil mediation (Annual Report at 26).
A 1994 amendment to Saskatchewan's The Queen's Bench Act introduced an initial mediation session in two centres on a pilot basis, at the close of pleadings in every non-family, civil litigation action. The pilot moved to program status in September 1997 with expansion to the one of busiest judicial centres in the province. The program continues to expand and currently captures approximately 80% of all non-family civil litigation actions commenced in the province.
The Queen's Bench Act,1998, S.S. 1998, c. Q-1.01, s. 42.Annual Report 2010-2011 Ministry of Justice and Attorney General Recommendation 1 of the CBA Systems of Civil Justice Task Force was that every jurisdiction "make available as part of the civil justice system, opportunities for litigants to use non-binding dispute resolution processes as early as possible in the litigation process and, at a minimum, at or shortly after the close of pleadings, and again following completion of examinations for discovery."
The evaluation data, both qualitative and quantitative, which has been collected and analyzed for this study illuminates the operation of the Saskatchewan Queen's Bench mediation program and gives voice to the experiences of program users. It provides a detailed picture of the relationship between lawyers, their clients, the mediators and the structure and design of the present program.
The Saskatchewan Queen's Bench mediation program is perceived by almost all the individuals we consulted as appropriate, and its objectives - the faster and more satisfactory reaching of settlement in some civil matters - fully achievable. It became rapidly apparent that the question that respondents were most interested in discussing with us was not whether the program should be maintained, but how it might be improved in order to better achieve those objectives.
The consensus that emerges is that the program is reaching its goals in many individual cases, but not in others. While there is widespread support for both its universal nature and the present timing of mediation, many respondents called for greater flexibility in relation to both aspects of program design. In addition, there is an interest in rethinking the role of the mediator to clarify and perhaps sharpen this point of intervention with greater proactivity, and perhaps some type of enlarged role before and after mediation in certain cases.
There are also a few clear problems with the design of the present program. One is that some cases proceed to mediation with insufficient preparation, perhaps with little or no exchange of materials in advance of mediation, and just occasionally, an absence of "good faith" to negotiate. Another issue (perhaps related to this) is the somewhat uninformed approach of a small number of members of the Bar in regard to the role they might most effectively adopt in the mediation process. Each of these problems is resulting in some disappointment among clients, and some frustration among some members of the Bar (Learning from Experience at 6).
Following the evaluation in 2003 there was a further round of discussions with the legal community and legislative amendments responding to the recommendations in the report occurred in 2004. The amendments to The Queen's Bench Act provided flexibility for the Director to postpone the mediation session until after the parties have exchanged documents. This provided greater flexibility in the timing of the mediation session. In situations where documents are crucial to a party's case or a more productive mediation will occur after exchange of documents the Director may grant a postpone to allow for this exchange to occur.
Other amendments clarified the authority of the Director of the Dispute Resolution Office to grant exemptions and postponements and granted the court the ability to award costs against a party that does not comply with the mediation requirement.
Pilot project implemented in two centres
Reform instituted in major judicial centres
1996 Northwest Territories Case Management (Part 19) Northwest Territories
The Court has noted areas which are in need of improvement and the Rules Committee had indicated its intention to address them commencing Fall 2007.
Rules facilitating resolution of disputes without trial if possible and, if a trial is required, simplifying issues so as to make the entire process more efficient in both time and money for the litigants.
Part 19 sets out a comprehensive scheme for pre-trial case management. There is no set procedure for case management. Instead Part 19 utilizes a flexible approach consisting of various case management tools (i.e. pre-trial conference) to be used based on the nature and needs of the case. The Court could send a case to case management or the parties may apply for it. A case management judge is then appointed. Once a judge is appointed, a variety of procedures are available:
Pre- trial conference: Rule 231 of the 1979 Rules of Court describes the objective of the pre-trial conference as the simplification of issues and exploration of the possibility of admission. The purpose of the pre-trial conference is not to bring about settlement, but if that is the result, then all the better.
Case management: In larger complex cases, a case management programme may be necessary. Settlement of the case is not the purpose of case management, but rather, it is to prepare the case for trial in the most efficient and cost effective way. Case management may involve establishing a schedule for all interlocutory pre-trial steps; limiting the time period for discovery; setting dates for the exchange of expert reports; filing a Statement of Agreed Facts. More than one case management conference may be scheduled. After each conference a judge would prepare a memorandum outlining the subject-matter of the conference and any directions made. The memorandum will provide at least an informal and basic record of steps taken at the conferences. A case management judge can be the trial judge due to the limited number of judges on the bench.
Settlement conference: A settlement conference is essentially a form of alternative dispute resolution designed to avoid trials. The judge's role is that of an objective mediator who keeps the discussion on track. Topic areas include: assessing success on various issues and damages that may be awarded; financial resources available to parties to meet a judgement; insurance coverage; offers and counter offers made; legal costs of litigation to date, to trial, and to possibly appeal. As a general rule, the settlement conference judge cannot be the trial judge. A settlement conference may be requested by the agreement of all the parties.
Mini-trial: Mini trials are in-camera hearings whereby the presiding judge gives a non binding advisory opinion on the probable outcome at trial [Rule 292]. The mini trial judge cannot be the trial judge. This procedure is best suited to cases which involve areas of legal dispute where neither credibility nor facts are significantly at issue. Although the judge's opinion would only be advisory, it normally would have a substantial enough effect on counsel to move the parties toward settlement.
Rule 288 permits sanctions against any party violating orders issued under Part 19.
The incorporation of Part 19 into the Rules of Court was essentially a formalization of dispute mechanism tools already informally used by the court. By putting the rules in writing, the Court is able to apply the procedures uniformly and with clear guidelines. Rules 281-292 (Part 19) were modelled on Saskatchewan's r. 192, Ontario's r.50, and B.C.'s r.35(5).
A second Notice to the Profession was released in December 1999 to clarify some minor problematic issues. Parties were utilizing case management to resolve issues that other Rules of Court were meant to resolve. Overall, however, it seems that case management was working well in the Northwest Territories and would be retained.
Rules of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Part 19.Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Notice to the Profession: Case Management Procedures - General Guidelines (Northwest Territories Courts, 1996).Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories, Notice to the Profession: Case Management Guidelines (No. 2) (Northwest Territories Courts, 1999). The Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories describes the purpose of Part 19 in a Notice to the Profession issued in June 1996:
The purpose of Part 19 is to provide flexibility in procedures so as to facilitate matters for trial or to effect a pre-trial settlement. It is premised on the "multi-door courthouse" approach: one way to get into system (by starting an action) but, once in the system, many options (beside a trial) to choose from. The rules can accommodate a wide variety of steps from the traditional pre-trial conference to a highly involved settlement-oriented colloquy. The objectives are nevertheless the same: the resolution of disputes without trial if possible and, if a trial is required, the simplification of issues so as to make the entire process more efficient in both time and money for the litigants (1996 Notice).
Case management rules come into effect
Notice to the Profession clarifying rules
1998 Alberta Provincial Court Civil Claims Mediation Alberta
Alberta regulation introducing mandatory mediation in selected Provincial Court cases to assist the parties in resolving disputes without going to trial.
At any time after a dispute note is filed the matter may be reviewed and chosen for mediation. Parties are sent a letter signed by a judge requiring them to attend a mediation session at a specific date and time. All parties are required to attend mediation and a corporate representative must have knowledge of the case and the authority to resolve it. Counsel and agents representing parties may attend with the party.
The mediation process was developed and implemented in 1997 in Alberta Regulation 271/1997 under ss. 65 and 66 of the Provincial Court Act.
Mediation Rules of the Provincial Court,External Link Alta. Reg. 271/97.Provincial Court Act,External Link R.S.A. 2000, c. P-31, ss. 65, 66.Provincial Court Civil Claims Mediation Program: Frequent QuestionsExternal Link (Alberta Courts, 2008). See also Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta Civil Mediation Program The court centres which have implemented the program keep statistics on the mediation settlement rate. Statistics collected from the Calgary and Edmonton programs in 2005 indicate a mediation settlement rate of approximately 63% using interest-based mediation.
Permanent implementation in four court centres
1998 BC Small Claims Court Mediation Program (Rule 7.2) British Columbia
Court Mediation ProgramExternal Link (website) (BC Attorney General, 2009). [Website]British Columbia, Small Claims Rules, r. 7.2.External Link The objective of CMP is "to enlarge the pool of qualified mediators in B.C.; to enhance access to justice; and to relieve backlog pressure on the court. Up until now, the CMP has been operating in 3 registries, Surrey, Robson Square and Nanaimo, on the authority of practice directions issued by the Office of the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court" (Website).
CMP established
Practice Directive replaced by Rule 7.2
1998 Court of Appeal of Québec Mediation Service Program Quebec
Court of Appeal of Québec's voluntary mediation program.
The mediation service is open to all parties involved in civil, commercial or family litigation at the Appeal Court level. However, certain subject matters may not prove to be suitable (for example jurisdictional issues). Litigation in constitutional or criminal law is obviously excluded from mediation.
In all cases, both parties must sign a "Joint Request for mediation" form. This is the one and only form that has to be filled out and filed. The form is forwarded to the office of the Court as soon as possible after filing the notice of appeal. At any time before the court hearing the parties may request a mediation session. Parties not represented by counsel are also admissible to the mediation program.
It should be stressed that there are no additional costs to the parties. The Quebec Court of Appeal funds the program through its regular staff and the program operates under the general supervision of the Chief Justice.
Filing the request for mediation automatically suspends appeal proceedings. However, either party may decide to abandon the mediation program and return to the ordinary appeal procedure at any time.
A program manager receives the request and opens a file which is kept entirely separate from the Court of Appeal files. The program manager and the judge conciliator screen the request for mediation to evaluate the likelihood of settlement and the suitability of the issues for mediation. When necessary a telephone conference is held by the judge conciliator. This is to discuss the issues on appeal and the status of the negotiations in order to ensure that the parties have a real interest in a mediation. The telephone conference is also required to ensure that mediation is not being sought merely as a pretext to buy time in the ordinary court proceedings.
The parties must agree on one set of documents which together constitute the mediation file...The supporting documents are usually forwarded to the presiding judge-mediator usually one week prior to the date set for mediation. In practice, the mediation process, being very flexible, adapts to each individual situation.
The Scheduling of Mediation Sessions
A mediation session is scheduled within thirty days following reception of the request in writing. On average only one three hour session is required and it is usually held early in the appeal process. This is so the parties can avoid further major legal expenses and delays in obtaining official transcripts and preparing factums and annexes.
The Ground Rules and Procedure
At the beginning of a mediation session, the judge determines ground rules and procedure with the cooperation of the parties and their attorneys. Each mediation session is unique. The parties will structure it the way they want. It is important to stress this element because the heart of the mediation system and the probable reason for its success is it's capacity to be supple and adaptable.
The judge discusses a possible settlement jointly with the parties and their attorneys, but may meet with both parties together without their lawyers. The judge explores the possibilities, avoiding as much as possible expressing an opinion with regard to the judgement of the trial division. However, in some circumstances, the judge will feel at ease to express an opinion regarding a judgment rendered by the trial division. In those cases, the judge mediator may readily identify an oversight or weakness in the judgment. This, in an effort to further clarify the legal issues for the parties and to bring about a better understanding of what is at stake. However, as a general principle, the judge must totally abstain from giving an opinion on the validity of the judgment and leave the merits of the appeal for the Court...The judge can recommend specific solutions for settlement, but will never compel the parties to accept a settlement.
Discussions are not limited to the specific issues raised in the notice of appeal and some time is allowed for the parties to settle any related issues arising between them in other cases. Again, flexibility is encouraged and provided by conciliation and permits the parties to find a global settlement.
The Confidential Nature of Proceedings
The confidential nature of mediation proceedings is crucial to productive negotiations. As a matter of ethics, the parties voluntarily commit, on the request for conciliation form, to keep all matters strictly confidential and to refrain from disclosing the substance of all discussions. There are no transcripts or summaries of the mediation session and any notes taken by the judge mediator are eventually shredded.
If the parties are successful in resolving their differences through mediation, a settlement agreement is drafted by the attorneys and signed by the parties. The settlement agreement is then ratified by an independent panel of three judges of the Court of Appeal at no extra costs and without the need of a written motion. Once ratified, the judgement is as enforceable as any other judgement of the court. In a few cases where settlement is not achieved in a first session, the parties may be granted a short delay to further consider their positions and return for a follow-up session which are often successful. Even in failure, the mediation exercise will have permitted the parties to better understand the issues and this will prove to be useful in the preparation of the factums and in reducing the time of a hearing. Consequently, if the mediating session does not end up with settlement, the exercise will prove to be beneficial in providing efficient case management (CSP).
In 1998, under the auspices of the Quebec Court of Appeal, the conciliation service program was implemented as a pilot project at the appellate court. Judicial mediation was a first in Canada and is still believed to be the only program of its kind anywhere. Judicial mediation refers to the fact that the process involves the full and active participation of an Appeal Court judge at each stage of the process. The Court of Appeal adopted officially the Mediation Service Program in October 1999, keeping the parameters set in the pilot project (CSP).
The Mediation Service Program of the Court of Appeal of Quebec: Summary (website) (Court of Appeal of Quebec, 2009). [Summary]Honourable Louise Otis, The conciliation service program of the Court of Appeal of Quebec World Arbitration &amp; Mediation Report (March 2000). [CSP] Taking into account the judicial evolution in western society, many courts, including the Court of Appeal of Quebec, have decided to initiate, within the traditional system, a system of judicial mediation with a view to reinvesting in the parties themselves their power to decide their dispute. As guardians of public order and democratic values, it is fitting that the judiciary participate with the community in transforming the classical justice system so that it is more reflective of social values. In doing so, the justice system bears witness to a lessening of the distance between the judiciary and the public and to the principle that society is better served when it is better understood (Summary).
Within two years of the program's existence, "over 200 cases ha[d] been conciliated in civil, commercial and family matters and over 80% ha[d] been settled successfully, after one mediation session" (Summary).
Program implemented as a pilot project at the Court of Appeal
Program made permanent
1998 Federal Court Rules - Case Management and Dispute Resolution Services (Part 9) Federal
Federal Court of Canada Rules Committee
Mandatory case management system in the Federal Court that employs three case management tools: status reviews, specially managed proceedings, and dispute resolution.
Under the Federal Court Rules, all cases before the Court are subject to case management. The Federal case management system employs three case management tools: status reviews, specially managed proceedings, and dispute resolution. Status reviews are hearings convened by the Court when parties fail to reach specific steps within certain time limits [r. 380-382]. The Court automatically fixes a date for a status review if pleadings are not closed within 180 days of the issuance of the statement of claim, or where no requisition for a pre-trial conference has been filed within 360 days. For appeals, it is 180 days from the issuance of the notice of application or appeal. A status review may be ordered by a case management judge at any time [r. 380(3)]. At a status review, an appellant or applicant may be required to:
To show cause why the proceeding should not be dismissed for delay and dismiss for delay if the Court is not satisfied.
To show cause why default judgement should not be entered and enter a default judgement if the Court is not satisfied.
If the Court is satisfied that the proceeding should continue, it can order it to continue as a specially managed proceeding.
Specially managed proceedings [r. 383-385] are cases taken out of the usual Court flow and proceed according to directions given by the case management judge. The case management judge may:
give any directions that are necessary for the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceedings on its merits;
fix the period for completion of subsequent steps in the proceedings notwithstanding any period provided for in the Rules;
fix and conduct any dispute resolution or pre-trial conferences that he or she considers necessary; or subject to subsection 50(1) hear and determine all motions arising prior to the assignment of a hearing date;
or may order that a status review be held in accordance with Rule 382.
Dispute resolution rules are also incorporated into the Rules [r. 386-391]. A judge may order a dispute resolution conference with respect to any issue in the proceeding. The conference has a 30 day limit and is conducted by a case management judge or prothonotary. These conferences can be mediations, an early neutral evaluation or a mini trial [r. 387]. Where a settlement of all or part of the proceedings is reached at a dispute resolution conference, it must be recorded in writing, signed and filed within 10 days of the settlement being reached [r. 389]. If a resolution is not obtained or only partially obtained, the case goes to Court. A case management judge who conducts the dispute resolution conference cannot preside at the hearing unless all parties consent [r. 391].
The amendment was put in place:
(1) To align the status review and case management rules with the current practice of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Federal Court in order to enhance the efficiency of the courts.
(2) To amend the rules to allow one or more prothonotaries to be appointed as case management judge.
(3) To amend the rules to allow the Court to order at any time that a case proceed as a specially managed proceeding.
(4) To make an amendment stating that the case management judge or prothonotary referred to in paragraph 383(c) can rule on any matter raised before the specially managed proceeding is assigned, unless the Court directs otherwise, and to allow the judge or prothonotary to order a status review at any time.
In 1993, the Federal Court Rules Committee commenced a review of the Federal Court Rules. The purpose of this review was to bring the Rules in line with provincial rules, and make them accessible and easier to understand. The Committee hosted many consultations with various stakeholders. In January 1998, the new Rules were approved by the Rules Committee and subsequently by the Governor in Council on February 5, 1998. The new rules came into force on April 25, 1998.
Part 9 was reviewed and a proposal for amendments was published on November 18, 2006 in the Canada Gazette. Most of the amendments were minor, more in the nature of clarification or reinstatement of pre-1998 Rules that were omitted in the 1998 Rules, or past practices that were not properly reflected in the 1998 Rules.
The amendments to the Federal Courts Rulesconcerning Case Management/Status Review based on the 2006 proposal were registered on September 27, 2007 and came into force on that date.
Federal Court Rules,External Link Part 9.Federal Court of Canada 1998 ReportPDFExternal Link (Federal Court, 1999).Rules Amending The Federal Court Rules,External Link C. Gaz. 2006.I.3725 [2006 Gazette]Brian J. Saunders, Meg Kinnear, Donald J. Rennie &amp; Graham Garton, QC, Federal Courts Practice 2007 (Toronto: Thomson Canada Ltd, 2006).Rules Amending the Federal Courts Rules (Case Management),External Link C. Gaz. 2007.II.2020. [2007 Gazette] These rules are designed to grant the Court a more active role in supervising proceedings and encouraging resolutions. By allowing the Court to manage cases, the pace of litigation is no longer controlled exclusively by the parties, and as a result cases can be resolved in an efficient manner.
Federal Rules Committee commenced review
New rules approved by Rules Committee
Governor in Council approved new Rules
New Rules came into force
Proposed Amendments to Status Review published
Amended Rules came into force
1999 Newfoundland and Labrador Mediation Pilot Project in Small Claims Court Newfoundland and Labrador
Pilot project incorporating interest-based mediation into the small claims process and using articling students as mediators.
In 1999 the Small Claims Rules Committee decided to use third-year law students who were completing their articling as the mediators in the proposed mediation process. This obviated the need for any financing for the project as the mediation could be done on a volunteer basis; and as the law clerks were all members of the Law Society, there was already a regulatory body in place to maintain professional standards. At the time it was hoped that the law students would welcome a chance to be directly involved in the litigation process and that obtaining volunteers would not be a problem. This hope has come to fruition and the number of volunteers has, on some occasions, outstripped the number of cases to mediate. To date all of the law clerks in the bar admission course from 1999 to 2007 have participated in the process and all of them have reported they found the experience to be very useful.
We continued with the project this year [2008] despite a shortage of judicial resources which arose as a result of retirements and illness. We had a well attended organizational meeting with the law students in August and started to assign the mediation sessions in September. Not all of the 2008 class have had a chance to mediate as of the writing of this article but all of those who have completed a session reported that they enjoyed the experience and several have asked that they be given another mediation opportunity. The students since 1999 have been exposed to more ADR courses in law school and successive classes have grown much more comfortable in the role since the inception of the program. The settlement rate remains very high and it has been a great benefit to the many unrepresented litigants appearing in small claims court.
2008 Annual Report at 35
Results of the Mediation Process
On the litigation itself the success rate in terms of settling cases via mediation has not been high but it has been significant. On average, over the years, mediators have settled between 30 and 40 percent of the cases. Despite this, however, the majority of litigants have been positive about the process-finding that even if a full settlement of their case was not achieved, at least some of the issues were resolved and they were more prepared for trial. We had initially referred all cases to the medication process. Experience over the past six years has shown us that some cases are not amenable to mediation and will not settle. This has proved to be the case in motor vehicle accident cases. Generally speaking, before starting the court process these cases have already been through a form of mediation in that insurance adjusters have negotiated with the parties and further mediation or discussion between them at court is pointless. Most vehicle accident cases involve a determination of fault and turn on the findings of fact and parties are interested in having a trial and a determination being made by a Judge. As a result, the Small Claims Rules Committee has decided that this year, motor vehicle accident cases will no longer be mediated and instead will proceed directly to trial. All the remainder of the cases will still go through the mediation process.
2007 Annual Report at 34
In May of 1999 a "pilot" project was started in the Small Claims Court to incorporate interest-based mediation into the small claims process...Prior to introducing mediation the procedure was to hold a settlement conference pursuant to Section 10 of the Small Claims Act S.N.L. 1990. The settlement conference was chaired by the Judge and was essentially a first appearance to ensure that the parties were ready for trial. At the settlement conference, the Judge would explore the possibility of settlement with the litigants or make other orders such as default judgments in the event of a non-appearance but there was little opportunity for mediation.
2008 Annual Report at 35)
Small Claims Rules, NLR 52/97. (2009)Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador: Annual report 2006-2007 (Courts of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2007). [2007 Annual Report]Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador: 2007/2008 annual report (Newfoundland Law Reform Commission, 2008). [2008 Annual Report] "The hope was that by using mediation fewer cases would go to trial and issues could be resolved at the settlement conference stage" (2008 Annual Report at 35).
See also Newfoundland and Labrador Small Claims Court The student experience compliments the bar admission course and it continues to be a very positive process for litigants, the Court, and the Bar. Interestingly our program has had an international effect. A delegation of judges from Eastern Europe was at the Court for a visit in the fall of 2007. They were extremely interested in our mediation program and we have since heard that they hoped to design a similar program to ours in their home courts utilizing their student Judges.
Mediation plot project initiated
Motor vehicle accident cases are no longer mediated
1999 Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program (Rules 24.1 and 75.1) Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor)
Continuation of the Program past July 4, 2001 "was to be in large part dependent on the results of a thorough and independent 23-month evaluation".
[T]he focus of the evaluation was on the four major objectives of mandatory mediation under Rule 24.1, namely:
Does Rule 24.1 improve the pace of litigation?
Does Rule 24.1 reduce the costs to the participants in the litigation process?
Does Rule 24.1 improve the quality of disposition outcomes? and
Does Rule 24.1 improve the operation of the mediation and litigation process?
Executive Summary at 1
Program designed to help parties involved in civil litigation and estates matters attempt to settle their cases prior to trial.
Many parties negotiate during the course of litigation. Over 90 percent of all lawsuits settle before getting to the trial stage. Under the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program, cases are referred to a mediation session early in the litigation process to give parties an opportunity to discuss the issues in dispute. With the assistance of a trained mediator, the parties explore settlement options and may be able to avoid the pretrial and trial process.
Under Rule 24.1, civil actions that are subject to case management are referred to mandatory mediation. Case management is a system in which the court supervises cases and imposes strict timelines on their movement through the pretrial and trial process. Certain civil actions, such as family law cases, are excluded from mandatory mediation. Under Rule 75.1, contested estates, trusts and substitute decisions matters are referred to mandatory mediation.
Civil, case-managed actions (except family cases) that are defended are referred to mediation. Cases may be exempted only if the parties obtain a court order.
The mediation is conducted by a private-sector mediator. Parties may agree to select a mediator from the Program's roster of mediators or one who is not on the roster. This decision must be made within 30 days after the first defence is filed.
If the parties cannot agree on a mediator, one will be appointed for them by the Local Mediation Coordinator, who is responsible for administering the Program.
The mediation must take place within 90 days after the first defence is filed, unless the court orders otherwise. However, parties in a standard track action may agree to postpone the mediation for an additional 60 days by filing a consent with the Local Mediation Coordinator.
Effective January 1, 2010, as part of the extensive changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24.1 will be "expanded to include all cases commenced in Ottawa, Toronto or Essex and is no longer limited to case managed or simplified procedure cases. Now mediation is to take place within 120 days after the first defence has been filed (rather than 90 days as under the previous regime) and mediation may be postponed to a later date if the parties consent to the date in writing and the consent is filed with the mediation coordinator". (Amendmentsat 3)
Proceedings relating to estates, trusts and substitute decisions are referred to mediation, unless there is a court order exempting them.
Within 30 days after the last day for serving a notice of appearance, applicants are required to bring a motion for directions relating to the conduct of the mediation.
At the motion for directions, the court may direct such matters as: the issues to be mediated, who has carriage of the mediation, the timeframe for conducting the mediation, which parties are designated to attend the mediation, how the designated parties are to be notified of the mediation, and how the cost of the mediation is to be shared among the parties.
Following the motion for directions, parties are required to select a mediator within 30 days of the court order giving directions.
The mediation is conducted by a private-sector mediator. Parties may agree to select a mediator from the Program's roster of mediators or one who is not on the roster. The party with carriage of the mediation is required to give the selected mediator a copy of the order giving directions.
If the parties fail to select a mediator within 30 days, the party with carriage of the mediation must immediately file with the Local Mediation Coordinator a request to assign a mediator.
The mediator, whether assigned or selected, is required to immediately fix a date for the mediation and, at least 20 days before that date, serve on every designated party a notice of the place, date and time of the mediation.
At least 7 days before the mediation, designated parties must provide the mediator and the other designated parties with a Statement of Issues.
The Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program was started on January 4, 1999 in Toronto and Ottawa as a pilot project until July 4, 2001. Based on an evaluation of the Program, it was permanently implemented following the release of the evaluation report on March 12, 2001. The Program was implemented in Windsor on December 31, 2002. Effective January 1, 2010, as part of the extensive changes to theRules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24.1 will be expanded to include all cases commenced in Ottawa, Toronto or Essex.
Robert G. Hann &amp; Carl Baar, Executive Summary and RecommendationsPDFExternal Link (Robert Hann and Associates Limited, March 2001). [Executive Summary]Report of the Evaluation Committee for the Mandatory Mediation Rule Pilot Project EvaluationPDFExternal Link (Evaluation Committee of the Ontario Civil Rules Committee, March 2001).Civil Rules Committee, Consultation PaperPDFExternal Link (Court of Appeal for Ontario, October 2008). [Consultation Paper]General Information - Ontario Mandatory Mediation ProgramExternal Link (website) (Ministry of the Attorney General, 2009). [General Information]Garry D. Watson &amp; Michael McGowan, Ontario Civil Practice - Transition Guide 2009/2010: Amendments to the RulesPDFExternal Link (Carswell, May 2009). [Amendments] The Program is designed to help parties involved in civil litigation and estates matters attempt to settle their cases before they get to trial, thereby saving both time and money.
Proposed amendment: Ontario Case Management (Proposed New Rule 77) Evaluation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program
On March 12, 2001, an Evaluation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program was submitted to the Civil Rules Committee. The report highlighted the following overall key findings and recommendations:
In light of its demonstrated positive impact on the pace, costs and outcomes of litigation, Rule 24.1 must be generally regarded as a successful addition to the case management and dispute resolution mechanisms available through the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in both Toronto and Ottawa. More specifically, the evaluation provides strong evidence that:
Mandatory mediation under the Rule has resulted in significant reductions in the time taken to dispose of cases.
Mandatory mediation has resulted in decreased costs to the litigants.
Mandatory mediation has resulted in a high proportion of cases (roughly 40% overall) being completely settled earlier in the litigation process - with other benefits being noted in many of the other cases that do not completely settle.
In general, litigants and lawyers have expressed considerable satisfaction with the mediation process under Rule 24.1.
Although there were at times variations from one type of case to another, these positive findings applied generally to all case types - and to cases in both Ottawa and Toronto.
The evaluation has also identified a limited number of specific areas in which improvements to the Rule would enhance the operation of the mediation program.
R 1. The Rule be extended for the current types of cases covered beyond July 4, 2001.
R 2. The Rule be amended, or other procedural changes be made in line with the findings in this report, as part of a process of continuous improvement of Rule 24.1.
R 3. The Rule be extended to other civil cases in Toronto and across the province as part of the expansion of case management.
Executive Summary at 2
Proposed Changes to Rule 24.1
On October 1, 2008, the Civil Rules Committee issued a request for consultation on a proposed new case management Rule 77, which "carries with it certain consequential amendments to the rule respecting mandatory mediation (Rule 24.1)".
The new Rule also allows for different levels of case management for different cases. The mandatory mediation rule is to be altered to make it a separately operating rule such that mandatory mediation can be required in cases without also requiring those cases to be subject to case management and vice versa. There is also more flexibility as to the timeframe within which mandatory mediation must occur under the amended Rule.
Consultation Paper at 1
Program initiated in Toronto and Ottawa
Report of the Evaluation Committee released
Program initiated in Windsor
Rule 24.1 expanded to include all cases commenced in Ottawa, Toronto and Essex
2001 Alberta Intake and Caseflow Management Alberta
Intake and Caseflow Management Regulation, External Link Alta. Reg. 150/2005. (Enabling Acts: Family Law Act, Provincial Court Act)Jason Chance, Pilot project provides help to family law applicants Just-in (Winter 2002). [Just-in]Alberta Provincial Court Intake and Caseflow Management project expanded to Calgary Family Justice Newsletter (Winter 2007). [Family Justice Newsletter] In the past, unrepresented applicants often faced challenges when bringing applications for custody, access or private guardianship in provincial court.
Pilot Project launched in Edmonton
Expanded to Calgary
2001 BC Facilitated Planning Meetings Program (FPMP) British Columbia
Facilitated Planning Meetings were introduced in 2001 as part of the the Surrey Court Project pilot program, which was continued as a permanent program with Facilitated Planning Meetings now available in some areas of the province. The Surrey Court Project was an initiative of theChild, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) Caseflow Study Committee. The committee was established at the recommendation of the Ombudsman, Dulcie Macallum. In her 1998 report "Getting There: Response to the Recommendations of the Gove Inquiry into Child Protection," the Ombudsman recommended that the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Children and Family Development strike a committee to explore the reasons for delays in court decisions regarding children and youth.
Evaluation of the Surrey Court Project: Facilitated Planning Meeting: Final ReportPDFExternal Link (Dispute Resolution Office, BC Ministry of Attorney General, November 2003). [Report]Justice Services Branch, Surrey Court Project BackgrounderPDFExternal Link (BC Ministry of Attorney General, April 2004). [Backgrounder] The prime objective of the Facilitated Planning Meeting is to make effective decisions for children as soon as possible. It provides an opportunity, early in the court process, for parents and social workers to meet and, with the help of an independent mediator, resolve as many issues as possible in a collaborative manner. The social worker is accompanied by a Court Work Supervisor who has the authority to agree to a service plan and approve allocation of resources.
BC Child Protection Mediation Program The final evaluation report contained the following conclusions:
Pilot project initiated in Surrey
Project continued past expiration of the pilot period
Evaluation of the pilot project released
2001 Family Mediation Services Program (Nunavut Pathfinder Project - Inuusirmut Aqqusiuqtiit) Nunavut
Nunavut Court of Justice 2001 Annual ReportPDFExternal Link (Nunavut Court of Justice, 2002) [2001 Annual Report]Nunavut Justice Business Plan (Nunavut Department of Finance, 2003). [Business Plan]Department of Justice Canada. Family, Children and Youth Section. Program Development Unit, Summary of Activities for the Child-centred Family Justice Fund 2003-2005External Link (Department of Justice Canada, 2005). [Family Justice Fund Report]Nunavut Court of Justice 2007 Annual ReportPDFExternal Link (Nunavut Court of Justice, 2008) [2007 Annual Report] While recent non-adversarial innovations in the Nunavut Justice system have often focused on criminal law, few initiatives have focused on civil or family matters. Backlogs and concerns about a lack of access to family law services have been growing since Nunavut was established on April 1, 1999. The adversarial process of solving any disputes is culturally foreign to Inuit, and it has been found not to be particularly successful.
2003 Newfoundland and Labrador Court Ordered Mediation (Rule 37A) Newfoundland and Labrador
Supreme Court Trial Division Rule's Committee
Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court allowing court-ordered mandatory mediation in civil (non-family) cases.
Rule 37A envisions the mediation process as one "of discussion between parties...under the direction of neutral third party...to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable resolution" (r. 37A.01(b)). Although the Rule contemplates "interest-based" mediation, the "procedure and methodology to be followed...may vary according to the particular style and approach of the mediator" (r. 37A.05(7)).
The Court, on the application of a party or on its own motion at any time following the filing of a defence, may order the parties to participate in mediation (r. 37A.03(1)). Unless otherwise ordered, the mediation must commence within 24 days of the date of such order, it should last no longer than four hours in total and the costs thereof are born equally by the parties (r. 37A.03(3)). All further proceedings are stayed until the mediator's report is filed (r. 37A.03(6)).
Once the mediation has been scheduled, the parties are required to provide the mediator and each other party with a brief statement of factual and legal issues in dispute, a summary of that party's interests and copies of all documents considered of central importance in the proceeding at least seven days before the session (r. 37A.05(2)). The mediator is required to file a mediation report within 10 days after the mediation is concluded indicating whether agreement has been reached (r. 37A.07(1)).
If an agreement has been reached at the mediation, the parties have to file a Memorandum of Settlement pursuant to r. 39.06. Otherwise, the case proceeds in the normal course
Concerns raised regarding Rule 37A
Rule 37A.03(c) contemplates that the costs of mediation are to be borne equally by the parties. This is troublesome because many litigates, in particular personal injury plaintiffs, may not have the financial resources to contribute to the costs of mediation.
Although the rule contemplates the establishment of the list of mediators, the rule does not set out the eligibility criteria for the persons to be placed on the list.
CBA News at 11
Rule 37A.03(5) and .05(5) both contemplate additional parties attending the mediation, and in .05(5), specifically insurers. A concern has been raised that this may give such parties the opportunity to frustrate the process for their own needs. (CBA News at 11).
Rule 37A, governing Court Ordered Mediation, came into force on April 1, 2003. It applies to all non-family law civil cases.
CBA News No. 19 (Spring 2002). [CBA News] (NL ADR Section, October, 2009)NOTICE TO THE PROFESSION AMENDMENTS TO RULES 37A, 39 AND 40 "The purpose of this rule is to establish a mechanism to provide mandatory mediation pursuant to court order in individual cases so as to reduce cost and delay in litigation and to facilitate the early and fair resolution of disputes" (r. 37A.02).
In practice, the rule is infrequently used. Most matters in civil litigation in Newfoundland and Labrador which go to mediation go there by the desire and consent of both parties, thereby circumventing the need to make application to do so.
2004 BC Court of Appeal Settlement Conference Program British Columbia
Judicial Settlement Conference Committee, BC Court of Appeal
BC Court of Appeal practice directive introducing voluntary settlement conferences.
The settlement conference is interest-based, not rights-based, which is to say that the presiding judge does not speak to the factual or legal merits of the appeal, but rather seeks to find a mutually-agreeable resolution with the parties.
Participation in settlement conferences is entirely voluntary. All parties involved must consent to the process and anyone can revoke consent at any time. If consent is revoked during the process, the process comes to an end.
The procedure is set out in Practice Directive #8. In brief, a joint request for a settlement conference must be made, which takes the file out of the usual appeal stream and thus suspends time limits during the settlement conference process. Settlement conference procedure is handled by the Law Officer, not the regular registry staff; accordingly, materials relating to the settlement conference remain with the Law Officer and are not part of the regular appeal file.
The process involves two steps. First, following the joint request for a settlement conference, the parties (or their counsel) have an initial telephone conference with a judge, to determine if the matter is suitable for a settlement conference. If the matter is deemed suitable, the second step, a settlement conference, takes place.
BarTalk at 17
The first request for a settlement conference was made in December 2004 and the most recent, the 12th request, was made in June 2008. Of the first 11 requests, four involved family law matters; the other seven have been a mix: two involved personal injury, two involved commercial issues, one was a wrongful dismissal case, one was a human rights case, and one involved an appeal from an order striking out a statement of claim.
Four requests have progressed to a full settlement conference. In one case, the parties settled after the conference. In the other three, the parties settled at the conference. The remaining seven cases did not go to a settlement conference for various reasons: (a) at the initial teleconference a determination was made by the judge or the parties that the matter was not suitable for settlement conference; (b) a party withdrew consent; and (c) the parties agreed to discontinue the settlement conference process.
Only one request, the twelfth, was made in 2008, in a family law matter. This settlement conference had not yet concluded by the end of 2008.
A two year pre-hearing judicial settlement conference pilot project was introduced at the BC Court of Appeal in November 2004. At the end of the pilot period, the program was extended for an unlimited period.
Judicial Settlement Conference September 2011Gregory S. Pun (Bartalk June 2008)BC Court of Appeal Annual Report 2008 "The purpose of a settlement conference is to assist parties to resolve appeals at an early stage, to save expense to the parties and to expedite the final resolution of the dispute" (Annual Report at 32).
Pre-hearing judicial settlement conference pilot project launched
Program extended for unlimited period
2004 BC Family Mediation Practicum Project British Columbia
(Ministry of Attorney General, Justice Services Branch, June 2005). [Report]Family Mediation Practicum ProjectMediate BC Results of an evaluation of the Family Mediation Practicum Project were released in June 2005. The Report concludes that:
Project launched as a pilot at New Westminster Registry
Results of evaluation released
Project made permanent
2005 Newfoundland and Labrador Case Management (Rule 18A) Newfoundland and Labrador
Rules Committee of the Trial Division
Overview of the case management process Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador rule.
An application for case management can be made on the ground that the proceeding will involve a complex issue or a lengthy trial, or that the preparation for trial or pre-trial applications in the proceeding would otherwise benefit from management, supervision and direction by a single judge.
A case management order can be obtained via an interlocutory application, informally through a request to the Chief Justice or a designated judge if all parties consent, by request to the pre-trial conference judge, or on a judge's own motion.
Once a case is approved for case management, a meeting is set up where a case judge and counsel may discuss any of the following:
the development of a case management plan, including milestones;
the procedures to be followed for further case management meetings;
the nature and extent of the pre-trial procedures that may be required to advance the proceedings;
the timing and methodology associated with the making of any application;
the dispensing with procedural steps associated with any application;
the possibility of resolving procedural steps by agreement;
the appropriateness of restructuring any or all of the proceedings for trial;
the setting or re-adjustment of timetables for steps to be taken in the proceedings;
the determination of readiness for trial of some or all of the proceedings, if more than one;
such other matters as would be discussed and dealt with at a pre-trial conference pursuant to rule 39.02(5);
the appropriateness of holding a settlement conference or mediation session;
the manner of conduct of the trial;
the preparation and filing of a certificate of readiness when the matter is ready for trial; and
any other matters pertinent to or affecting the proper conduct of the proceeding. [r.18A.06]
If a party fails to attend case management meetings, acts in a manner contrary to the spirit of Rule 18A, or obstructs the process, a judge can make any order as to costs. Provisions are also made to allow parties to participate in case management conferences through audio conferencing.
The Rules Committee of the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador introduced An Amendment to the Rules of the Supreme Court on November 30, 2004. The Amendment brought in Rule 18A - Case Management. This Amendment was forwarded to the Office of the Legislative Counsel on September 19, 2004, filed on September 19, 2005, and published in the September 23, 2005, edition of The Newfoundland and Labrador Gazette, as Newfoundland and Labrador Regulation 84/05. This Rule came into force on January 1, 2006.
Newfoundland and Labrador, Rules of the Supreme Court, r. 18A. [T]o provide for selected proceedings a level of management and direction with respect to pre-trial procedures and preparation for trial that is more organized, coordinated and focused than what would be normally applicable to cases proceeding through the system from pleading to trial, with a view to:
ensuring that maximum benefit is gained from each trial day;
making more efficient use of Court resources;
ensuring adequate and accurate amounts of time are reserved for trial; and
providing for the public interest in access to justice in a timely and cost effective manner (Rule 18A).
Rule came in force
2006 Saskatchewan Small Claims Court - Case Management Conference Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Minister of Justice Advisory Committee
Overview of Saskatchewan Small Claims Court pre-trial case management process.
Saskatchewan's Small Claims Court uses a two-step process. "The first step is a case management conference (which the judge can waive) to settle the litigation or narrow the issues and resolve procedural matters. It includes familiarizing self-represented litigants with the process that will be followed at trial. The second step is trial, to which the first step has paved an efficient way." (Into the Future at 31-32)
Information packages for all stages of the process have been prepared for public use, as well as a flowchart of the overall process. This material has been made available at all court offices, placed on the Courts' website, and widely distributed to local agencies. Training and education initiatives included the preparation of a Bench Book for Judges presiding over small claims matters, a one day session for judges on case management conferences, and training sessions for court staff from each court office.
The Small Claims staff will prepare the documents and give you information on how to proceed. You do not need a lawyer to represent you, although you may have one if you wish. A pre-trial case management process has been introduced for small claims matters. A case management judge will assist the persons involved to settle the matter without going to trial. During the case management, the judge will be authorized to:
settle any issues being disputed;
If settlement attempts have not resolved the dispute, a trial will be held. The judge may give any necessary directions to the persons involved to ensure the trial proceeds quickly and efficiently.
A 2005 report by the Minister of Justice's Advisory Committee reviewed the small claims process. The Committee was composed of members from the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Saskatchewan members. Focus groups were held with court staff, lawyers, and the public. Consultations were also held with the judiciary. The amendments to the Small Claims Act recommended in the report came into effect in 2006.
Prior to the amendments, case management conferences were already being utilized in the larger courts. They were highly successful, resulting in 50% of cases being settled out of court.
The Advisory Committee considered the alternative. The overwhelming response from those consulted was that the litigants wanted to hear the opinion of a Judge about the merits of the case, rather than of a non-judicial actor. Matters would be less likely to settle if Judges did not conduct the case management conferences.
The Small Claims Act, 1997 (webpage) (Saskatchewan Justice and Attorney General, 2007). [Website]Margaret A. Shone, "Into the future: Civil justice reform in Canada, 1996 to 2006 and beyond: Confirming Our Common Vision, Toronto, Ontario, 7 &amp; 8 December 2006. [Into the Future] Small Claims Act, 1997, S.S. 1997, c. S-50.11. The case management conference has two purposes:
settle the litigation, or
if no settlement can be reached, narrow the issues for trial and resolve procedural matters, to ensure a more efficient proceeding. This includes familiarizing self-represented litigants with the process which will be followed at trial.
Saskatchewan Small Claims Court Permanent implementation
Minister of Justice Advisory Committee Report
Amendments came into effect
2007 Yukon Family Law Case Conferences (Practice Direction 40) Yukon
Practice Direction #40, Family Law Case Conferences (The Supreme Court of The Yukon Territory, February 26, 2007). [Practice Direction] "[T]to ensure that all parties are aware of the alternative dispute resolution procedures that are available and to discuss the appropriate procedure for the particular case" (Practice Direction at 1).
Rules of Court for the Supreme Court of Yukon Permanent Implementation
Practice Direction 40 took effect
2007 Yukon Judicial Settlement Conference (Rule 37) Yukon
Judicial settlement conference process in Supreme Court.
A judge may order attendance at a settlement conference upon request of a party or on his or her own motion.
Priority will generally be given to family law matters, as they are usually more urgent. It is anticipated that in personal injury matters, a private mediation will be attempted before a judge will be called upon, except for those cases with a contested legal issue.
Counsel may jointly request a particular judge whose background and experience will be conducive to reaching a settlement. The senior judge will assign the settlement conference judge.
In advance of the settlement conference, the judge [may] have a phone conference with counsel to discuss the case. This will include the issues to be dealt with and their order, whether it will be a mediation, one judge's opinion or arbitration, and the timeline for filing settlement briefs. Counsel will be asked to disclose the settlement discussions to date including offers. The discussion should determine who will start first and the level of participation of counsel and parties.
The settlement conference will be conducted in a respectful way and the conduct of counsel and parties must be respectful at all times.
The settlement conference will be without prejudice, which means that nothing that is said or done can be raised at trial. All documents produced will be returned to counsel or the parties.
The settlement conference will be recorded by the judge. The recording is for the use of the judge only and will be stored in a sealed envelope in a separate file.
The settlement conference judge will not be the trial judge, unless all parties request and consent to that judge hearing the trial.
Generally, the attendance of counsel and the instructing party is required. In personal injury cases, the adjuster with settlement authority must attend. Videoconferencing may be arranged (Practice Direction at 1).
Practice Direction No. 41, Judicial Settlement Conferences, was issued on May 23, 2007 and Rule 37, Judicial Settlement Conference, came into force on September 15, 2008 as part of the reform of the Rules of Court for the Supreme Court of Yukon.
Practice Direction #41, Judicial Settlement Conferences (The Supreme Court of The Yukon Territory, May 23, 2007). [Practice Direction] Rule, Judicial Settlement Conference Rules of Court for the Supreme Court of Yukon. To assist parties to resolve their cases at an early stage, to alleviate expense and to expedite the final resolution of the dispute.
Practice Direction No. 41 issued
Rule 37 came into force
2008 Manitoba First Choice Dispute Resolution Pilot Project Manitoba
First Choice Dispute Resolution Process Ongoing pilot project
Inventory of Government-based Family Justice Services Ongoing pilot project
2009 New Brunswick Family Court Pilot Project New Brunswick
Pilot of an alternative model for Queen's Bench Family Division to increase efficiency, promote alternatives to court, and expedite high-conflict parties.
As part of the pilot, "all cases entering the judicial system would first appear before a quasi-judicial official appointed under the Judicature Act. This official, referred to in the Ottawa model as a family case management master, would then determine the appropriate services and immediate remedies required. (News Release'')
Recommendations of the Task Force for the Family Court Pilot Project include:
Masters (appointed individuals with at least 10 years of practical family law experience) would play a key role in the project and be responsible for the efficient flow of cases through the judicial system.
The Court system will be accessed by parties through:
a private lawyer,
Domestic Legal Aid, or
If they are self-represented, they will visit the Family Law Information Centre (FLIC) located in the courthouse. The Centre will be fully automated. The client will use a talking touch screen to access what they require. They will print the forms needed from a dispensing machine for a printing fee. The same forms will be available online.
Report at 47
The party will file an originating process and an application for triage together with a copy of their last year's income tax return. They will be assigned a date for the triage process and will serve the opposing party with this document. The respondent will complete their response and file and serve it. The documents will be an information page. There will be no affidavit evidence at this stage.
Both parties will attend at the triage session. If they have a lawyer, the lawyer will also attend. This session will be presented with 15-20 cases at the same time and is scheduled for one-half day. The opening presenter will provide information on:
The effects of separation and conflict on children. A short video similar to For the Sake of the Children will be shown. Clients will be advised that any of them who intend to file for motions or a trial involving children will be required to complete the For the Sake of the Children course prior to receiving a court date.
The basic principles of support and division of property.
The various methods of dispute resolution - mediation, collaboration, arbitration, negotiation and litigation.
Report at 48
After the 30-minute presentation, clients will be asked to self-identify:
Resolved: Those couples who have resolved their issues will meet with a master to finalize their order and sign it with the Master.
Mediation: Those couples who believe they can make progress in mediation will be moved to another area and wait to see a mediator. They will each spend 15-20 minutes with the mediator to ensure that they can continue in this process and then will book their sessions with the mediator. Mediation will be paid for on a sliding scale dependent upon their annual income.
Case conference: Those remaining couples will have a case conference with a master or a judge who will attempt to assist them in reaching a settlement. If one is reached, they will wait until the order is prepared and they will sign it. If not reached, the master will give them further direction on a method of dispute resolution that the master feels is suitable for their case. The master will identify high-conflict cases at this stage.
Clients who are not successful in resolution at Stage 4 will continue through the system in two streams: mediation and case conferencing.
Mediation: Will be voluntary. Clients will continue in it to completion or switch into the court stream if it fails.
Court stream: In this stream, clients will have access to justice in two distinct ways:
Motions: Clients have the opportunity to file a motion and be heard as needed on substantive issues, such as interim relief.
Case conferences: Procedural issues will be handled by case conferences upon the request of either party. The judge or master who heard their triage meeting will continue to assist them by way of case conference. Case conferences are informal meetings. They are mostly for procedural issues and have the responsibility to ensure that the file is court-ready. A judge or master may order costs against any party who does not follow the procedural rules. Substantive issues such as immediate changes to access and enforcement of access may also be resolved at this stage.
Report at 48-49
Clients who are in the court stream will have a settlement conference before their trial dates are set.
At the settlement conference stage, the parties may choose one of two routes:
Classic settlement conference: The same as is currently in place under Rule 50, with two modifications: a. Settlement conferences will occur early in the life of a court file - within two or three months of the initial filing of the originating process; b. The applicant's settlement brief will be due 30 days prior to the settlement conference and provided to the respondent, with the respondent's brief due 10 days later (20 days before the conference).
Binding settlement conference with a judge of their mutual choice. The decision of this judge is final and is not open to appeal.
Report at 49
For those files that continue to be unresolved, a trial will be held. The trial will not be in front of the judge used in the case conference or settlement conference.
Access to Family Justice Task Force, led by Justice Raymond Guerette of Campbellton, was appointed in February 2008 and mandated to make recommendations that would lead to:
Following a release of the Task Force's Report, an implementation committee was formed to implement the recommendations contained in the Report. One such recommendation is the implementation of an alternative model for the Court of Queen's Bench, Family Division, based on the Ottawa Family Court pilot project, which is planned to be piloted in the Fall of 2009.
New Brunswick promises family court pilot projectPilot project, committee established in response to family justice report (09/06/02)Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force [Guerette report] To increase the efficiencies of all Court matters that touch the lives of children, especially those in child protection.
To identify those families who would benefit from professionals who could assist them to settle their issues.
To identify high-conflict parties early and move them to trial expeditiously, while giving them access to justice through case conferencing while they wait for their court date.
Pilot project details released
2009 New Brunswick Family Law Information Centre (FLIC) New Brunswick
Access to Family Justice Task Force recommendation for a legal education and information centre for self-represented litigants with family law issues.
For the purpose of assisting self-represented parties accessing the Court system (as part of Stage 1), the Task Force recommended a creation of a FLIC, to be located in the courthouse.
Task force on access to family justicePilot project, committee established in response to family justice report (09/06/02)Report of the Access to Family Justice Task Force [Guerette report]Details of family law pilot project"New Brunswick promises family court pilot project"New Brunswick’s Family Law Information Centre alternative dispute resolution
2010 Vancouver Justice Access Centre Self-help and Information Services (previously BC Supreme Court Self-Help Information Centre) British Columbia
John Malcolmson &amp; Gayla Reid, BC Supreme Court Self-Help Information Centre: Final evaluation report (BC Supreme Court Self-Help Information Centre, 2006). [Final Evaluation]Vancouver Justice Access Centre (website)John Malcolmson &amp; Gayla Reid, Summary highlights of the initial evaluation report: BC Supreme Court Self-Help Information Centre (BC Supreme Court Self-Help Information Centre, 2006). The purpose of the pilot project was to design a self-help centre (SHC) for unrepresented litigants that would facilitate access to justice by offering advice, information, and education about procedures in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. SHC services comprise of a range of resources developed by partnering organizations as well as the in-person service delivered by the two staff who work at the physical location. The office is open for walk-in service and there is no financial eligibility test for accessing services and resources. Although the Centre's purpose is to provide services to unrepresented litigants in its Vancouver location, services are offered to all walk-ins, regardless of where their Supreme Court case originates (Final Evaluation at 6).
Alberta Law Information Centres (LInCs) Interview data shows that the centre was providing a unique set of self-help services and was forming part of a larger context of emerging services for unrepresented litigants.
BC Justice Access Centre Pilot Project Interview data shows that the centre was providing a unique set of self-help services and was forming part of a larger context of emerging services for unrepresented litigants.
2011 Awards of Costs and Access to Justice Saskatchewan
Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench Any individual or corporation considering whether to launch or defend a lawsuit has to consider the cost of litigation. In Saskatchewan, the unsuccessful party in a lawsuit is usually ordered to pay costs to the successful side. However, the costs awarded will usually be substantially less than the full legal bill incurred by the successful party. Several effects follow from this “partial indemnity” costs regime:
1. The successful litigant will be out-of-pocket for the shortfall, reducing the actual compensation recovered.
2. The unsuccessful litigant will have to pay part of the other side’s legal fees, which may discourage a party with a good but uncertain case from risking litigation.
3. Both plaintiffs and defendants may seek to avoid the cost of litigation by settling without going to court.
Awards of Costs and Access to Justice - Law Reform Commission of Saskatchewan The costs regime operating in Saskatchewan is not universal. While the partial indemnity approach is favoured in all the common law provinces and in England, the general rule in the United States is to award no costs to indemnify for legal fees. In the civil law nations of Europe, on the other hand, a successful litigant can expect to be fully indemnified by the other party. Each costs regime has its defenders. While the Law Reform Commission has decided not to proceed further with work on this issue, this paper is intended to encourage discussion of the effect of the costs regime. It raises issues rather than possible solutions to this difficult problem. The paper introduces the topic and briefly describes the cost regime in Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions that award costs on a partial indemnity basis, and contrasts it with full and no indemnity systems. While the Law Reform Commission has decided not to proceed with further work on this issue, this paper is intended to encourage discussion of the effect of the costs regime. It raises issues rather than possible solutions to this difficult problem. The next section of the paper briefly describes the cost regime in Saskatchewan and other jurisdictions that award costs on a partial indemnity basis, and contrasts it with full and no indemnity systems. The final section of the paper canvasses arguments that have been advanced in favour of each system. Completed
Access to justice Cost to justice business
alternative dispute resolution Contact Us