Category: Dispute Resolution

Case Commented On: Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139

If a lawyer fails to prepare his client for mediation, and bullies her into a settlement, a court may find the lawyer negligent and award damages to the client amounting to the difference between what she settled for and what she likely would have obtained in court (or arbitration). That is what happened in Raichura v Jones, 2020 ABQB 139, a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In this case, the lawyer was ordered to pay damages of $131,939. In other words, this case is a lawyer’s nightmare. The facts may be uncommon, but the decision includes important warnings. The case has naturally provoked interest from the family law bar and has already been blogged about by Lorne Wolfson here, and by Aaron Franks and Michael Zalev in the June 1, 2020 edition of This Week in Family Law (paywall). As both blogs pointed out, the decision is being appealed. My primary interest with Raichura v Jones is the resounding message that lawyers should not bully their clients into a settlement.

Mandatory Dispute Resolution Coming Back to Alberta, But What About Domestic Violence Cases?

By Jennifer Koshan

On August 30, 2019

In Dispute Resolution, Family

By: Jennifer Koshan, Janet Mosher and Wanda Wiegers

PDF Version: Mandatory Dispute Resolution Coming Back to Alberta, But What About Domestic Violence Cases?

Matter Commented On: Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Notice to the Profession & Public – Enforcement of Mandatory Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules 8.4(3)(A) and 8.5(1)(A)

Last month, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta issued a Notice to the Profession indicating that it would be lifting the suspension of the mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, for a one-year pilot period commencing September 1, 2019. Mandatory ADR (or mandatory judicial dispute resolution, JDR) will now apply once again to civil and family litigation in Alberta. Although there are some exceptions to this requirement, there is no explicit exemption for domestic violence cases. As noted in a previous ABlawg post concerning similar developments under family legislation in Saskatchewan and federally under the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), as well as a more recent post on a government review of civil and family legislation in Ontario, cases involving domestic violence may not be not appropriate for ADR, and should be explicitly exempted from any mandatory requirements. There should also be screening and training requirements on domestic violence for those who will be assessing exemptions and conducting ADR.

Ontario’s Review of Family and Civil Legislation, Regulations, and Processes: The Need to Prioritize Domestic Violence

By Janet Mosher

On August 9, 2019

In Dispute Resolution, Family, State Responses to Violence

By: Janet Mosher, Jennifer Koshan and Wanda Wiegers

PDF Version: Ontario’s Review of Family and Civil Legislation, Regulations, and Processes: The Need to Prioritize Domestic Violence

Matter Commented On: Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Review of Family and Civil Legislation, Regulations, and Processes

On July 9, 2019, the government of Ontario announced that the Parliamentary Assistant to the Attorney General, Lindsey Park, was undertaking a review of family and civil legislation, regulations, and processes. According to the news release, “The review will explore ways to simplify family and civil court processes, reduce costs and delays, and encourage the earlier resolution of disputes.” More specifically, the Ministry of the Attorney General is seeking to:

direct family law matters out of a combative court process, where possible;
reduce the cost of the process to families and taxpayers; and
streamline the processes to shorten the time to resolution.

Umpires: Qualifications, etc.

By Jonnette Watson Hamilton

On August 12, 2009

In Dispute Resolution, Insurance Law

Cases Considered: Matti v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ABQB 451

PDF version: Umpires: Qualifications, etc.

This is a post about insurance, not baseball. Umpires decide certain types of financial disputes between property owners and insurance companies in particular circumstances. Insurance claims involve umpires when the insured and insurer disagree about the value of damaged or destroyed property or the amount of the insured’s loss. The insured and the insurer each appoint an appraiser and the appraisers appoint an umpire. If the appraisers cannot agree on how to resolve the dispute, then the two appraisers submit their arguments to the umpire. The decision of two of those three persons decides the matter, which means, in effect, that the umpire decides. If the appraisers cannot agree on an umpire, then the insured or insurer can ask the court to appoint one. What qualifications should these decision-makers have? That question has not been the subject of much judicial consideration in Canada and so this decision by Mr. Justice W.P. Sullivan is a welcome one. But it still leaves open many other questions about insurance appraisals; they are a rather ill-defined process.

Category: Dispute Resolution

Mediation: A Warning Not to Bully a Client into Settlement

Mandatory Dispute Resolution Coming Back to Alberta, But What About Domestic Violence Cases?

Ontario’s Review of Family and Civil Legislation, Regulations, and Processes: The Need to Prioritize Domestic Violence

Umpires: Qualifications, etc.