Access to justice should not stop at the hearing room door. Much of the current discussion of access to justice has focused on getting people into the justice system, with little discussion of how to make justice accessible once they get there. In a justice system that increasingly has self-represented parties as well as unequal representation, fairness and efficiency require that adjudicators take a more hands-on role in the hearing process. This hands-on approach has been termed “active adjudication” by commentators and adjudicators.

There are a great variety of adjudicative tribunals in Canada, all with different rules and approaches to . . . [more]

We need to change our primary focus. Too often, we focus inward on how the system operates from the point of view of those who work in it. ….. The focus must be on the people who need to use the system. … Litigants, and particularly self-represented litigants, are not, as they are too often seen, an inconvenience; they are why the system exists. … Until we involve those who use the system in the reform process, the system will not really work for those who use it.
National Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, . . . [more]

As the courts in Canada continue to struggle with difficult issues relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements and the enforcement of arbitral awards, it is worth looking at how courts in other common law jurisdictions see the relationship between the courts and arbitration.

The Hon James Allsop, Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, gave a very thoughtful address at 2013 Clayton Utz University of Sydney International Arbitration Lecture (29 October 2013).

Like others, he sees serious problems with the trend in many countries toward “over-elaborate, over-lawyered, and slow and costly [arbitration] hearings. …[R]ecalcitrance and excessive demands for . . . [more]

Two years ago, almost to the day, Simon Fodden contacted us to write a bimonthly column on online dispute resolution (ODR). A dozen columns later, and after going through the most important current developments on the topic, we realized that we might have skimmed over the core question that should have preceded all of our previous entries: what is ODR?

Obviously, definitions of ODR are plentiful. However, as is often the case when everyone has his or her own idea of a word’s meaning, definitions are sometimes incompatible. That being said, as explained in a recent paper published by Julio . . . [more]

There has been a much-needed recent focus on the state of the civil litigation process in Canada. Of course, the courts are only a small (albeit vital) part of our system of justice. In fact, a majority of people in Canada will have little, if any, direct contact with the courts; they are more likely to encounter various aspects of the administrative justice system in disputes with neighbours, in their workplace and with governments. In this column, I will focus on the justice system for unionized employees – the labour arbitration process.

Labour arbitration was introduced as part of the . . . [more]

In my last Slaw post I explored how lawyers can assist their clients through effective mediation advocacy and by providing mediation coaching. In this post, I would like to explore another combination of legal services and mediation that has enormous potential to create affordable and accessible dispute resolution opportunities for clients.

Unbundling (or limited scope representation as it is commonly referred to in the U.S.) is becoming more recognized and highlighted as a key tool to increase access to justice, particularly for those who do not qualify for legal aid services but cannot afford full representation (the CBA, NAC . . . [more]

Unless you’ve been completely disconnected from international economic news, you’ve heard about the fact that, for four years now, Canada and the European Union have been negotiating “the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) in order to bring their trade and investment relationship to a new level”. As explained on the EU’s website:

CETA will cover the key issues relevant to a modern trade and investment environment, from ambitious new market access opportunities to clear rules for European and Canadian traders and investors.

Of course, one of the key issues relevant to a modern trade environment (or . . . [more]

Over the years I have seen dozens of contracts with dreadful arbitration clauses.

They are generally found near the end of the agreement, with the other so-called “boilerplate”. One often wonders whether the lawyers even read them before the contract was signed. Almost certainly, the business people didn’t. One consequence of this neglect is that, if and when the clause must be dusted off and used in a dispute, it may not work as intended. And unworkable arbitration clauses tend to give the process as a whole a bad name.

There are 7 essential elements of an effective arbitration clause. . . . [more]

There is considerable discussion these days about how the legal community can help to increase access to justice for Canadian citizens. We know that mediation is a valuable tool to that end but I wonder whether lawyers are recognizing its full potential or, in some cases, shortchanging its benefits.

While this may not be entirely “new”, this post encourages lawyers to amplify the role that they play in choosing and using mediation.

There are increasing opportunities for lawyers to participate in mediation, not in a mediator role but in a counsel or advocacy role, all of which support increased access . . . [more]

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” wrote Shakespeare in Romeo and Juliet. But there is plenty in a name, as J.K. Rowling discovered when her authorship of a pseudonymous mystery novel was revealed (sales shot up dramatically). Of course, her name is attached to a good reputation. Socrates said you should regard “your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of – for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, . . . [more]

There is a perceived reluctance to use private dispute resolution (either mediation or arbitration) to resolve intellectual property (IP) disputes.

One reason is that IP rights (patents, trademarks and copyright) are statutory monopolies, granted on a national basis. Therefore, rights holders must look to government authorities and national courts to establish and enforce these rights.

However, the most valuable IP rights are commercialized internationally, so national enforcement and dispute resolution is very costly, time-consuming and inefficient. IP litigation is also public and potentially fatal to confidential information and trade secrets. That’s why there is a compelling case for both owners . . . [more]

As mentioned in a previous post, the Cyberjustice Laboratory was proud to host the 2013 ODR Forum, which took place on June 17^th and 18^th in Montreal, Quebec. Among the issues addressed by our panelists and esteemed guests during those two days was that of the European Regulation on consumer ODR, a document that is seen as both a step in the right direction and a source of great confusion. If most in the ODR community welcome the document, general consensus also seems to be that important details remain to be incorporated for it to be implementable . . . [more]