The First Step to Collaborating: Consider What You Have in Common

“If I was having a conversation with someone I disagreed with, in good faith, I would probably start that conversation with what we do agree with.” – Ronny Chieng

The very notion of mandatory mediation is inherently flawed.

A process based foundationally on collaborative self-determination cannot really be forced upon people. There must be buy-in, some desire amongst those experiencing a dispute to work together to sort it out.

While contracts and laws can force mediation on paper, the reality is that the process can practically only come together with willing participants. They can be skeptical – it is not uncommon for some to arrive at mediation with a degree of pessimism – but the key is to attend with an open mind.

In June 2025, the Condominium Authority of Ontario facilitated a series of advisory panels about mandatory mediation and arbitration. The panels focused on the dispute resolution path prescribed under Section 132 of the Condominium Act, which deals with specific condo-related disputes that cannot be resolved through the Condominium Authority Tribunal or the courts. While the experiences shared are guiding resources being developed by the CAO to help, insights offered extend far beyond the provincial condo sector. Prominent condo lawyers and several others who participated in these sessions expressed this common sentiment: Mediation can be a very effective way of addressing issues, but it requires willing participants.

One Friday afternoon as we were planning for these sessions, I decided to share with my team an article that I wrote over 12 years ago. I did this thinking the aged, geeky photo of me accompanying the article would draw a few laughs as everyone geared up to shift into weekend mode. In the article, I wrote about the court deciding a condo dispute where a judge considered the approach taken by a successful party in awarding costs. Mandatory mediation did not apply, and the condo was the victor of the case. Yet, the condo was viewed by the judge as prolonging dispute resolution by “insisting on this litigation, when mediation was available to the parties”. As a result, the court significantly reduced the amount of costs the condo was able to recover while succeeding with its application. The message was clear – mandatory or voluntary – attempting to collaborate through mediation should come before moving ahead to an adversarial process.

In essence, try to handle your own business before getting someone else to handle it for you.

This may feel easier said than done. Particularly as the first step in collaborating is agreeing on something. It can feel counterintuitive when embroiled in a dispute. The mediation process can be frustrating when parties do not agree to a mediator or cannot find a mutually acceptable time and place to come together.

What to do when one party prefers Zoom and the other Teams?

It can help to consider what all involved in an issue have in common. A shared interest can be leveraged to come together. A shared focus can foster a collaborative spirit. Especially when people have an ongoing relationship – such as in the shared community setting of a condominium – it is often not difficult to find something they can agree on. This can offer a small step forward and build momentum toward a good faith effort to find mutually agreeable resolution.

Mediation offers the opportunity to save time, costs and stress. It can preserve relationships, embrace creative solutions and provide those directly involved in a dispute to specify their own outcome. Embracing this collaborative opportunity is encouraged on virtually all occasions. It can start with a consideration of what those involved in the conflict have in common.