When matters of litigation are directed by the court to be done outside of the traditional court environment the parties involved are typically already in a conflict-intense claiming process. In such an atmosphere it is not surprising that each party places great weight on the outcome of the process and this cannot be disregarded. Indeed, the way in which conflict-resolution is handled has important ramifications for the continuous relationships of those involved. It is in this light that the process of mandatory mediation requires further analysis. Certainly, when a judicial body seeks to mandate a once voluntary reconciliatory tool the consequences should be closely examined. As such, this essay will serve to investigate the positive and negative attributes of the mandatory mediation initiative. In this way, it will become clear that in cases where the court orders the mediation process to take place, the will to sustain a continued relationship between the parties in dispute is not typically an option. As such the mandatory mediation process is better suited in those cases where the parties involved place less emphasis on maintaining relationships.
[...] This study compared the costs of court litigation and mandatory mediation based on average salaries of litigation attorney's. Based on a billing rate of $200 an hour which can be said to be unfairly low based on today's standards, a three day trial in the General Division would cost somewhere in the area of $40,000. This differs markedly from the cost that would be incurred through mediation. There are rules set forth under the guidelines of mandatory mediation that dictate that the fees involved in the process cannot exceed $800, and that this fee be shared by the parties involved. [...]
[...] Lawyer No 37- Gambrill, D., “Mandatory Mediation Pilots A Success” (April. 2001) 12 L. times No Macfarlane, J., Dispute Resolution: Readings and Case Studies (Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publications Ltd., 1999) Melnitzer, J., “Need For Mandatory Mediation Drops with Caseload” (Mar. 1999) 10 Tiems No Pepper, R.A “Mandatory Mediation: Ontario's Unfortunate Experiment in Court-Annexed (August, 1998) 20 Advocates' Q. 403- Smith G., “Unwilling Actors: Why Voluntary Mediation Works, Why Mandatory Mediation Might (1998) 36 Osgood hall L.J. 847- Evaluation of the Ontario Mandatory Mediation Program (Toronto: Queen's Printer, March 2001). [...]
[...] Ontario Civil Justice Review First Report, online: Attorney General of Ontario's Homepage http://www.atttorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/manmed/notice.asp Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O Reg See Julius Melnitzer, “Need For Mandatory Mediation Drops With Caseload” (Mar. 1999) 10 L. Times No See Julius Melnitzer, “Will Mandatory Mediation Destroy Credibility of Rights-Based System? (Dec. 1998) 9 L. Times No at 10. Gary Smith, [...]
[...] For Randy Pepper, hallmark of mediation is its capacity to expand settlement negotiations and broaden resolution options by focusing on the parties' commercial and other interests, rather than just their legal positions.” Yet again, it would seem the biggest obstacle to the success of mandatory mediation is the fact it is mandated. As illustrated throughout this paper, one of the greatest advantages to mediation being its ability to maintain relationships, is unfortunately lost when the process is court ordered. In this way, the process of voluntary mediation stands a far greater chance of success than does the process of mandatory mediation if we are to evaluate it against a backdrop of maintaining strained relationships. [...]
[...] Second, the mandatory mediation process provides many cost-saving benefits. Third, the mandatory mediation provides for the creation of certainty as a result of settlement, and finally, the mediation process provides a level of privacy for the parties involved that would not otherwise be achieved in the court process. Certainly, the incentive to maintain relationships long after the mediation process is one that would be of interest to many of the people and parties that engage in civil litigation as a way of conflict resolution. [...]
using our reader.