Section 11: Mediation Process in the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program under the Courts of Justice Act, 1990.
Section 11 of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program under the Courts of Justice Act, 1990, outlines the mediation process that parties must undergo before proceeding to trial. The purpose of this section is to encourage parties to resolve their disputes through mediation, which can save time and money compared to going to trial. In this article, we will explore the details of Section 11 and its application in various legal cases.
Facts:
Section 11 requires parties to attend a mediation session before their case proceeds to trial. The mediation session is conducted by a mediator who is appointed by the court. The mediator’s role is to facilitate communication between the parties and help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution to their dispute. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the case proceeds to trial.
Relevant Laws:
The Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program is governed by the Courts of Justice Act, 1990. Section 11 of this act outlines the mediation process that parties must undergo before proceeding to trial. The mediation process is also governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide guidance on how the mediation session should be conducted.
How do the laws apply to the facts:
Section 11 requires parties to attend a mediation session before their case proceeds to trial. This is intended to encourage parties to resolve their disputes through mediation, which can save time and money compared to going to trial. The mediator’s role is to facilitate communication between the parties and help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution to their dispute. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, the case proceeds to trial.
Key Legal Issues or Questions:
The key legal issue in Section 11 is whether parties are required to attend a mediation session before their case proceeds to trial. Another key issue is whether the mediator has the authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the parties.
Likely Outcome:
Based on the application of law to the facts, it is likely that parties will be required to attend a mediation session before their case proceeds to trial. The mediator does not have the authority to make binding decisions on behalf of the parties, but rather facilitates communication between them to help them reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
Alternatives or Different Interpretations:
There are no viable alternatives to attending a mediation session before proceeding to trial under Section 11. However, there may be different interpretations of the mediator’s role and authority in the mediation process.
Risks and Uncertainties:
One potential risk associated with the mediation process is that parties may not be able to reach a resolution, which would result in the case proceeding to trial. There is also uncertainty around the mediator’s role and authority in the mediation process.
Advice to the Client:
Based on the assessment of the law and the facts, it is advisable for clients to attend the mediation session and work with the mediator to try to reach a resolution. This can save time and money compared to going to trial.
Potential Ethical Issues:
There are no potential ethical issues or conflicts of interest associated with attending a mediation session under Section 11.
Possible Implications or Consequences:
The potential implications or consequences of attending a mediation session under Section 11 include saving time and money compared to going to trial, as well as potentially reaching a mutually acceptable resolution to the dispute.
Related Case Laws and Judgments:
1. Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 – This case emphasized the importance of alternative dispute resolution methods, including mediation, in resolving legal disputes.
2. Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 – This case highlighted the importance of mediation in resolving disputes between parties, particularly in cases where there is a power imbalance between them.
3. Mancinelli v. Barrick Gold Corporation, 2015 ONSC 4237 – This case emphasized the importance of parties attending mediation sessions in good faith and making a genuine effort to reach a resolution.
4. R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 – This case highlighted the importance of timely resolution of legal disputes, which can be facilitated through alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation.
5. Hinton v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 SCC 24 – This case emphasized the importance of access to justice and alternative dispute resolution methods, including mediation, in resolving legal disputes.
