No one will be surprised to hear that I am a strong believer in the value of mediation. That is particularly true in the context of legitimate human rights claims. Where a person has been the victim of a breach of their human rights, there are often genuine and significant impacts on their mental health, very personal issues to be addressed, and a strong desire on the part of one or both parties to avoid the public spotlight. All of those factors make a mediated settlement attractive; in fact, the desire to keep private matters private is also a good reason to arbitrate such claims.
I recognize that in some cases, a victim of human rights breaches does not want to be silenced; hence the recent backlash against confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements. However, some complainants do not want their story to be public, and will be far more likely to proceed with mediation or arbitration than a public hearing in a court or tribunal.
Controlling the Process
The beauty of ADR is that it allows the parties to design a process that works for them. This can include mediation, arbitration, or med-arb, which combines both. Either way, they will be able to
- Avoid the delays inherent in the court or tribunal process,
- Choose their “judge” or mediator and select someone with the right expertise and temperament for the case,
- Determine the steps in litigation, such as disclosure of documents and examinations for discovery, and
- Streamline any hearing through the strategic use of affidavit evidence.
Simply put, our court system and tribunal process use a one size fits all approach, but parties who select ADR can determine how the matter will be dealt with, from start to finish. And speaking of finish…
Please log in to read the full article.