Courts uphold your Appropriate Dispute Resolution process

Gordon Andreiuk | November 8, 2016

photo of a lawyer instructing her client where to sign his settlement agreement after resolving his divorce negotiations with his spouse

How binding is the standard clause in a settlement contract, a.k.a. minutes of settlement, that requires the parties to attempt mediation or a 4x negotiation meeting before being allowed to bring a court application?

For the most part, Queen’s Bench Justices in family chambers have been upholding and showing respect for the requirements of that clause and would adjourn or refuse to hear a court application when the person responding or defending against the court application brought that clause to the Justice’s attention. The Court of Appeal in Henderson  v. Henderson, 2016 ABCA 256, recently reversed the decision of a Queen’s Bench Justice who did not uphold that clause. In the Henderson decision, the Court of Appeal wrote that, “having agreed to this requirement, the [person bringing a court application] cannot simply ignore it, and there was no basis for the Chambers Judge to dispense with mediation. Dispensing with mediation merely rewards the [person who brought the court application] for breaching the provisions of the Settlement Agreement.”

Court of Appeal decisions are binding on all Queen’s Bench Justices. So now all Queen’s Bench Justices, without exception, will need to uphold the requirements of that clause in a settlement contract.

I have been using the word contract because for some time now the court system has recognized that individuals involved in a dispute have the right to contract into a dispute resolution process outside the court system.

The Court of Appeal in Abernethy, 2005 ABCA 103, had dealt with a situation in which the litigants contracted out of the standard court litigation process, and into an arbitration process, albeit an arbitration conducted by a Queen’s Bench Justice. The Court of Appeal in Abernethy enforced the outcome of the arbitration, and also that the arbitrator’s decision could not be appealed.

Last year in an unreported decision, Sagrafena v. Sagrafena, 4806 016173, December 8, 2015, Justice Langston found that a divorcing couple had contracted out of the Queen’s Bench rules of court when they decided to negotiate in the collaborative divorce process. In his oral decision, Justice Langston stated that “to suggest that while in the midst of a collaborative law process, the parties must simultaneously be conscious of a plot running inexorably towards litigation is to defeat the whole purpose of the collaborative law process.” Justice Langston was in effect upholding the parties’ contract/ choice of dispute resolution process.

I believe that the court system in Alberta is slowly facing the reality that it too has limited resources, it needs to create incentives for people to resolve their disputes outside the court system, and that this will improve access to justice for the public. Upholding and giving respect to contracts to resolve the dispute outside the court system is one small part of creating those incentives.

Filed under: Dispute Resolution

Tags: , , ,

The Blog

Edmonton and area Collaborative Practice News and Information

Avoid the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” in your separation

James Samaroden | January 18, 2024

The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a simple yet powerful thought experiment. Imagine two people, let’s call them Alice and Bob, who are accused of committing a crime together. They are arrested and placed in separate cells with no way to communicate.

Continue Reading

Fair Settlement

divorceseparationca | May 3, 2023

Continue Reading

Neutral Financial Experts Save You Money

James Samaroden | April 26, 2023

When going through a Collaborative Family Law (CFL) process, it is important to have a team of professionals to support both parties in reaching a fair and equitable settlement. One key member of this team is the neutral financial professional.

Continue Reading


Hosted on Panda Cloud