Mediation is a conflict resolution process in which an unbiased mediator tries to help the people settle their dispute out of court.   These are some of the important advantages of mediation over other dispute resolution processes.

  1. Mediation is confidential.    You can tell the mediator about all the important issues in your case, and he can’t tell the other side without your permission. And when your case settles, the terms will not be part of a permanent court record.
  2. Mediation is without prejudice. Nothing said or offered during the mediation can be brought up later in Court.
  3. You are in control.  The purpose of mediation is to reach a settlement, but you, along with your attorney, make all the decisions.  No judge will be imposing a settlement on you without your agreement.
  4. If you reach a settlement, you will have certainty about your case.  Your case will be essentially over,  and you  not have to face unpleasant testimony by the other side and their witnesses. You can begin to get on with business again without a court case hanging over your head.
  5. Solutions can be creative.  The parties can make decisions based on the specific circumstances of the dispute.  A Judge is limited to specific decisions based on case law, precedents, and “cut and dry” solutions.  Mediated settlements allow for as many creative solutions as can imagined.
  6. The cost for mediation is much less than the cost of going to trial.  The longer a case drags on, the more it costs  in attorney fees and court costs – not to mention the business costs of prolonged uncertainty.
 

September 9th, 2010

by Diana Morokhovets

On August 30, 2010, the Court of Appeal unanimously decided in Keam v. Caddey, 2010 ONCA 565 to reprimand a litigating party for failure to participate in statutorily mandated mediation.

…the Court of Appeal rightfully directed its comments to the statutory duty to mediate stating that “[t]here can be no legitimate reason to refuse to participate because to elect not to participate constitutes a breach of the insurer’s statutory obligation. Accordingly, the Court concluded that despite a lack of malevolent conduct “a significant remedial penalty was required in all the circumstances.” To that effect, the Court ordered an increase of $40, 000 in the costs award. This brought the appellants’ recovery to $150, 000, up from $110, 000 representing partial indemnity costs ordered by the trial judge. This sum represents a middle ground between a partial indemnity award of $110,000 and the appellants’ substantial indemnity bill of $196, 145. This award allows the appellants to recover a significant amount of their costs and also reflects the court’s disapproval of the defendant’s actions without running the risk of opening the floodgates to a great increase in substantial indemnity claims.

See Refusal to Mediate Attracts a Remedial Penalty in Keam v. Caddey

 

This article by Ryan Black , Alison Hayman , Sarah Kilpatrick and Peter Wells of Lang Michener LLP covers topics including; File Sharing and Format Shifting,  Circumventing Technological Protection Measures, Time Shifting,  Exception for User Generated Content, Performers’ Rights, Network Service Providers, Libraries, Fair Dealing, and Ownership of Copyright in Photographs and Portraits.

After failed attempts in 2006 and 2008, the government tabled the Copyright Modernization Act (Bill C-32) in the House of Commons on June 2nd, 2010.  It has proven politically difficult in Canada to pass this type of legislation even though it is urgently needed.  Time will tell if this third attempt has struck a politically acceptable balance between the rights of users and owners of copyrighted works.

Read more at LangMichener.com.

Enticing Job Offers

 Commentary  Comments Off
Apr 122010
 

Bad things can happen when job offers are too good to be true.

In the highly competitive employment market of today, employers desperate to hire proven talent away from their competitors, sometimes promise more than they are actually able (or willing) to deliver. This often leads to an unhappy lose/lose conclusion. The employee is in a new position that is clearly not working out after having left a position where they were very successful. The employer is faced with a bitter, disillusioned employee who is not performing to expectations. Under these circumstances employment is usually terminated.

Employers who believe that the financial costs of such a short-term misadventure will be minimal are often in for a rude awakening. Many employees who were lured away from positions in which they had seniority and success have successfully sued the employer who enticed them away from those positions. In cases where the courts have found the employers actions to be wanting, the damages have been substantial. In one such case, Antidori v. Blue Pumpkin, Ms. Antidori was awarded what would have been one year’s salary, commission, and bonus. She was also awarded legal costs. The total award? $320,000.00. She had only been employed by Blue Pumpkin Software Inc. for six months, but because she was enticed away from her existing high-paying position at another software company with promises of more money and better job security the court felt she was entitled to more than the two weeks severance offered by Blue Pumpkin.

References:
Ontario Superior Court of Justice – decision; 2004-09-22
Globe and Mail Newspaper, Article by Marjo Johne, May 11, 2005

© 2011 The Goal Focused Way Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha