CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION-NEW BRUNSWICK BRANCH
REPORT OF THE ADR SECTION CHAIR
January 2008
Ellen Desmond
I recently had the opportunity to attend the National Meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, Alternative Dispute Resolution Branch, in Toronto, Ontario.
The following is a summary of this meeting:
A. International Association of Collaborative Professionals
Jacinta Gallant of PEI recently attended a seminar organized by the International Association of Collaborative Professionals (“IACP”). Jacinta reported that there is a movement afoot to apply the collaborative law principles to a number of new areas of the law, including estate disputes and commercial law disputes.
The seminar was well organized with very interesting speakers, including Bill Eddy of California, and Michelle LeBaron from British Columbia. There was an openness among participants for exploring the crossover in the various areas of dispute resolution. Members are encouraged to check out the IACP website and their resource materials.
B. Section Reports
Each Provincial Branch Chair presented a report which highlighted the developments in their respective jurisdiction. There are a number of interesting activities ongoing across the country. For example:
(i) In Quebec, the Law Society supported an advertisement encouraging members of the public to consider negotiation, mediation or collaborative law if they have a dispute.
(ii) Both in Ontario and in Manitoba they are evaluating and considering whether the Apology Legislation (which has also been introduced in British Columbia) should be introduced in their jurisdictions. The merit of this legislation is currently being debated.
(iii) In Alberta, there are major proposed changes for the Rules of Court and there is a great deal of concern that these rules also address the use of ADR.
(iv) In British Columbia, they are exploring the concept of “proportionality”, as it relates to litigation. Public interest and the ultimate possible outcome must be considered when advising clients as to the process they should use to resolve their dispute. This concept of “proportionality” has been introduced in the Justice Review Task Force concept draft.
They have also introduced in British Columbia the concept of a Hub where (for family law disputes) parties can go to a central location for an assessment as to the issues, the process the parties can use, (even legal advice), if appropriate. This is a pilot project that will be evaluated in the future.
(v) In PEI, there has been a growth in interest in collaborative law and in mediation, and PEI hopes to work with other Maritime Provinces to examine issues and work on training lawyers on a regional level.
(vi) Saskatchewan has just set up a new ADR Section and is exploring how to connect with members and grow their section.
C. Other Issues
(i) There was a recognition that the ADR Section should work to raise awareness in the public as to the work we do and the availability of ADR services offered by lawyers. This project may require the CBA Section to connect with the various Law Societies, and maybe other sections, to get their support. We will also require the support of the CBA National Office to make this message become effective and appropriate.
(ii) The ADR Section will also attempt to collect a resource of information from the universities as to the education that is being offered to students across Canada. Once this information has been collected, the Branch can make a determination as to how we can help in the education of young lawyers and law students.
(iii) The Section also hopes to determine what resources are available and what initiatives are currently underway across Canada. Thereafter, the Section may identify the topics that may be appropriate for a CLE program.
(iv) It was also proposed that the Section should work towards amending the Code of Professional Conduct to incorporate a principal of proportionality (This has been included in the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure). It may be a lengthy process to have an amendment made, but an initial investigation will be made.
(v) Finally, the Section discussed the possibility of changing its name to recognize the fact that Dispute Resolution should not be “alternative”. This is an issue that should be discussed at a provincial level before a final decision is made.
This was a very interesting, informative session with an exciting exchange of ideas.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
|
