header-logo header-logo

Should mediation be mandatory?

17 March 2021 / Jennifer Egsgard
Issue: 7925 / Categories: Features , Profession , Mediation , International justice , ADR
printer mail-detail
42839
Mandatory mediation: an impossible contradiction? Not in Ontario, Canada. Jennifer Egsgard reports.
  • Mandatory mediation in Ontario: how it works.
  • Evaluation of Ontario’s Mandatory Mediation Program.
  • Current lawyer views on Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program.
  • Increase in virtual mediations with COVID-19.

Should mediation ever be mandatory? While a subject of debate in the UK, nearly 20 years ago Ontario rule-makers answered ‘yes’ to this question. Since then, in three major cities mediation has been required in most civil litigation. Mandatory mediation in Ontario was shown to decrease time to settle cases, decrease cost to litigants, and increase satisfaction among lawyers and parties, among other benefits. Recent surveys of Ontario lawyers indicate that the vast majority of respondents would like mandatory mediation to be geographically expanded, showing satisfaction with the program. In September 2020, the Ontario Bar Association and other Ontario lawyer groups made formal recommendations to the Attorney General of Ontario that mandatory mediation be expanded geographically, and these recommendations are currently being considered by the government. Given the anticipated

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll