Canadian Lawyer Mag
Aidan Macnab
Family lawyers prefer alternative methods, but many cases will always require a courtroom
March 8, 2018 |Written By Aidan Macnab
Family law lawyer Heather Hansen says a recent study that suggests alternative dispute settlements are a better route than litigation, rests on certain assumptions that are not valid in many family law cases.
Lawyers prefer to use alternative dispute resolution processes in family law, which cost the client less, take less time and make for longer-lasting co-operation between the parties after the fact, according to a recent study.
The study asked family lawyers to evaluate their experience using collaborative settlement processes, mediation, arbitration and litigation. More than 90 per cent said they preferred to resolve family law disputes through collaborative processes whenever possible and 94 per cent said their clients were satisfied with the outcomes when doing so.
The study — "An Evaluation of the Cost of Family Law Disputes: Measuring the Cost Implication of Various Dispute Resolution Methods" — is based on findings from a survey of 166 family lawyers in Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and British Columbia. It also found that collaborative processes cut the client's legal fees in half. To resolve a low-conflict dispute through collaborative settlement cost $6,269 on average, while litigation would have averaged $12,400. The same went for high-conflict disputes, which average $25,110 and $54,000 for collaboration and litigation, respectively.
The study was done in collaboration with the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family at the University of Calgary and York University's Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.
The findings of the study are not surprising, says Heather Hansen, a family law certified specialist and partner at Martha McCarthy & Company LLP in Toronto who frequently uses arbitration and mediation.
"It's not a controversial idea or concept that people resolving their family law disputes do better generally by reaching an agreement," she says."I am a huge believer in mediation, a huge believer in arbitration. I practise regularly in those worlds."
But Hansen says the message that the study sends — that alternative dispute settlements are a better route than litigation — rests on certain assumptions that are not valid in many family law cases; for example, that a collaborative settlement is always preferable to a court battle because it saves time, money and stress.
One issue is the imbalance of power often inherent to family law cases. In some cases, one person holds all the assets, the nature of which the partner is unaware. This knowledge imbalance can produce a settlement, but it does not mean that it is a better outcome, she says.
"The concept of better outcomes or better results actually just depends on the nature of the case," she says. "Who's it better for? Is it better for the asset owner who cut a sweet deal? Or is it better for the recipient spouse [for whom] this is the most significant transaction in his or her life and she or he needs to maximize their financial outcome? 'What does better mean?' is kind of an open question for me when you look critically at that."
Hansen says there is an important reason family law does not have mandatory mediation like in civil litigation. Given the complex circumstances and diametrically opposed interests in some family disputes, there needs to be an adversarial process, the structure of the rules, disclosure and other benefits of the court process, to reach the best outcome, she says.
"It's not a failure of the parties or the family if they find themselves in litigation. It's not that they're making a bad choice. It might be a necessary choice under the difficult circumstance," she says.
Hansen says that the rise of alternative dispute resolution strategies is "one good side effect" to the ongoing problem of lacking judicial resources.
The study was part of a seven-year "cost-of-justice" study being done by the CFCJ, says Trevor Farrow, chairman of the CFCJ.
Farrow says that, unlike in health care, Canadians do not have a good sense of what the delivery of legal services costs the system.
"I think this study is really important for several reasons. First, it is one of a very small handful of studies in which we are starting to look at the actual cost of family and civil justice," he says.
"Hopefully, it will give us information to make choices on cost. And, hopefully, it will give us information to make choices on why we want to choose one process over another."
The study shows that in cases that are classified as "high conflict," lawyers did not prefer alternative dispute settlements but expressed that litigation was more effective.
"Typically, where [litigation] is found to be more useful is in high conflict, often involving the rights of marginalized or vulnerable people and in particular children," he says.
Parties to a family law dispute need to pick the process that will be right for them, says Jonathan Richardson, a partner at Augustine Bater Binks LLP.
"It doesn't surprise me that people are more satisfied with results that they have negotiated and achieved for themselves because it is not having a decision imposed on them," he says.
"Litigation can be very much a zero sum game. There is one winner, there is one loser and then there is resentment involved," he says. "When it's been a high-conflict scenario even before the breakdown of the marriage, it can result in high-conflict litigation, which needs a decision to be made. Those situations don't always lend themselves to alternative dispute resolution."
Collaberativelaw settlements or arbitration
Richard Gazzola 2018-03-12 05:20
Collaborative law is like arbitration ,where if your 100 per cent right under the law ,you give that up because arbitration or collaborative law get you to compromise your rights to something else and causes you to subordinate to others putting pressure on the person rights under the Ian. These processes only want a settlement and don't really care about your lawful rights .
A Collaborative Process is Unique
Judith Huddart 2018-03-12 05:15
I agree generally with the author's comments, however, the term "collaborative" appears to be used at certain times to refer to all out of court processes. In fact a 'collaborative process' is distinct from mediation and certainly arbitration. Collaborative practice is an interdisciplinary team approach to settlement with additional expertise acquired through specialized training for lawyers, mental health professionals and financial professionals. Only collaborative practice offers this support system with triage available from a team of trained professionals. It is possible to design a safe process in collaborative practice that can address higher conflict cases and thus avoid the costs, uncertainty, and added conflict of a court process.
LATEST FROM AIDAN MACNAB
Strict edibles guidelines could bog down nascent industry, say lawyers
Though cannabis edibles, extracts, lotions, balms and oils will be legal Oct. 17, consumers will have to wait until December to taste them and, as expected, producers will have to work around strict guidelines, say lawyers in the cannabis sector.
Yukon decision informs duty to consult
An unresolved assertion of Aboriginal title does not fundamentally change the Crown's duty to consult and duty to consult does not provide for a veto, says a recent decision from the Yukon Supreme Court.
Quebec gears up for family law reform
New Quebec Justice Minister Sonia LeBel is carrying through on an election promise to modernize family law in la belle province. In March, LeBel announced a series of 11 public consultations across Quebec on the issue of family law reform.
Manitoba working on family law reforms
New legislation from the NDP government will soon steer the heartbroken away from our adversarial court systems as they try to sort out such thorny issues as separation, divorce, property division, child support and custody arrangements.
LEGAL FEEDS ARCHIVES
SUBSCRIBE TO LEGAL FEEDS