• About us
    Who We AreStaff DirectoryBoard of DirectorsHall of FameMember AwardsStrategic Plan / Annual ReportsCommittees/CommunitiesCode of EthicsEducational FoundationEquity, Diversity & Inclusion
  • Advocacy
    IPIC SubmissionsIPIC Intervention Policy
  • What is IP?
     IP BasicsOwn it. CampaignWhy Use a ProfessionalHow to Become an AgentIndigenous Traditional Knowledge
  • Education
    Certification ProgramsCourses & EventsCertified Canadian Patent & Trademark Administrator Search Tool
  • Resources
    NewsCIPRFind an IP ProfessionalIPIC Job BankIPIC Compensation SurveysMedia KitIP Assist
  • Membership
    Your profession. Our purpose.Join NowMember BenefitsMember CategoriesMember Referral ProgramInsurance Program: IP Agent Insurance
  • 0
  • FR
Richard S. Levy
Levy IP Law and Dispute Resolutions
,
Nancy Cleman
Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon, L.L.P.
TopicsMediators and Arbitrators Community
Share

Mediation and Arbitration: Break Free of Covid-19 and Quebec Bill 96 Restraints

Published on November 4, 2022

Most people today, when caught in a commercial dispute that they can’t resolve by themselves, turn to a respected impartial person to settle the matter. In days of old, that “neutral” would have been a wise elder, a religious authority or a feudal lord, who would hear the parties’ contentions in his courtyard.

In recent times, as the law has become exponentially more complex, that impartial person is a Judge and the courtyard - a Courthouse. In many ways this has been an improvement, but one feature of the modern incarnation of justice is worse than before- the queue of litigants has gotten much longer, and the line towards a hearing date moves at a snail’s pace.

It may be ironic that the detailed rules of law, procedure and evidence that were created to deliver better justice have also worked to delay it. As well, many disputants can simply not afford the often-huge expense of taking a case to trial. Nor the displacement of focus from their other priorities. Nor the emotional stress suffered. As a result, there is a clarion call for “Better Access To Justice”.

In Quebec, the policymakers heard this call and gene-spliced the modes of negotiation, mediation and arbitration into the DNA of the justice system. That DNA includes the Codes of law, the day-to-day practices of the courts and the instruction of lawyers. These “gene edits” put the modes of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) at the forefront of better access to justice. More to the point, and as many argue, calling these modes “alternative” is now a misnomer. They are mainstream

The modes of ADR permit disputes to be managed in a much more favourable timeline, not least because the parties do not compete with litigating plaintiffs and defendants to get access to the courts. Also, unlike parties that appear in court, the parties in a mediation session or arbitration hearing have the advantages of privacy, shielding their testimonies and business information within the cone of confidentiality.

Naturally, it has taken time for these new approaches to gain traction. And then the Covid-19 virus struck in March 2020, erecting new hurdles on the road to justice. Responding to this challenge, proponents of ADR began conducting mediation and arbitration on online platforms.  

Then alas, in a “simple twist of fate”, on June 1st of this year, Bill 96, the Quebec government’s amendments to strengthen The Charter of the French Language, placed new hurdles on the road to justice for those who wish to plead in English and be assured that the judge understands their testimony. These new hurdles make it opportune to take a closer look at the advantages that ADR provides.

Under Bill 96 "legal persons", e.g., a corporation, can no longer file pleadings in English unless they are  paired with a French translation by a certified translator. (Recently, Justice Chantal Corriveau suspended these provisions of the law pending the full hearing later this year on the court challenge.) Judges are no longer required to understand or speak in English.

“Advantage: mediation”. In the mediation route of ADR, the need and burden to translate the documents underlying the dispute is absent. The challenges of finding certified translators and the delay of translating do not exist. Those impediments to a court filing balloon if “pleadings” is interpreted expansively to include the thick stack of exhibits often attached. The need to certifiably translate those could run into thousands of dollars.

Meanwhile, while we await the outcome of challenges to Bill 96 and probable appeals, the need to resolve disputes does not go on holiday.

Mediation is a catalyst - a substance that facilitates or speeds a chemical reaction. It is an agent that provokes a significant change.  In the field of dispute resolution, a mediator is a person who facilitates a “resolution reaction”. They are agents that bridge chasms and help transform a dispute into a settlement.

Mediation carries a suite of advantages. As compared to the years litigation takes, it often takes only a day or two.  Even if it takes longer, the parties work with the mediator to set the timeline. As a result, it is much less expensive, causes less stress, and allows the parties to focus on their businesses instead of endlessly reviewing documents. The parties select their own mediator and together craft a solution to their legal dispute that also makes business and emotional sense. Confidentiality is the guardrail that promotes these results.

Arbitration, whereby an adjudicator usually issues a binding decision, also offers an array of advantages compared to going to court. The parties get to select their decider (e.g., for his expertise and reputation). And work with her to limit the number of witnesses called and written evidence submitted. Here, confidentiality is also a hallmark. And, unlike court requirements under Bill 96, there is no need to translate “pleadings.”

But is ADR enforceable? Yes. When mediation results in a settlement agreement or the arbitrator issues a decision, the parties can certify it in court so that there is a judgment to enforce.  ADR is flexible. If a mediation does not work out, or a settlement is only partial, the parties can always turn to arbitration or the courts.

The advantages to the parties in ADR getting to choose their own neutral should now include language proficiency. The parties can ensure that the neutral can understand and speak to them in their own languages.  In mediation and arbitration there is no bar to choosing a fluent-in-English mediator, who conducts the session entirely in English. English speakers should not have to defer their expectations of justice for years until challenges to Bill 96 run their course.

There have long been persuasive reasons for choosing mediation and arbitration to access justice.  The challenges of Covid-19 and Bill 96 allow us to even better appreciate and practice these modes of resolving disputes.

Richard Levy and Nancy Cleman are Montreal lawyers and proponents of mediation and arbitration.

Related Articles

February 14, 2025

Cleaning Out the Closet: The Trademarks Opposition Board is Reviewing the Register

Michael Badejo
Section 45 of the Trademarks Act has generally provided a way for trademark registration applicants and opponents to remove “deadwood”—unused and abandoned trademarks that were on the trademark register. This process was generally reserved for parties to begin and oversee. In December 2024, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) advised of a pilot project which would see TMOB initiate section 45 proceedings. The effect? TMOB can clear the register of deadwood without waiting for applicants or opponents to initiate the process. Michael Badejo, Lawyer at Fillmore Riley LLP, walks us through how these changes impact operating procedures, processes and directions for TMOB. 
TopicsTrademarks
January 24, 2025

Practical implications of the Federal Court’s definition of “forced” divisional patent applications in NCS Multistage

Émilie Fleury
In NCS Multistage Inc. v. Kobold Corporation, 2023 FC 1486, the Federal Court revisited the question of what constitutes a “forced” divisional patent application—an important distinction given that forced divisionals enjoy immunity from double patenting allegations. This Emilie-Anne Fleury explores how the Court assessed whether certain divisional patents were truly “forced,” clarifies how voluntary versus forced divisions are treated under Canadian patent law, and highlights the practical considerations for patent applicants navigating unity of invention objections.
TopicsPatents
January 17, 2025

Unveiling the Canvas: Tackling the Issue of Counterfeit Indigenous Art in Canada

Melissa Tarsitano, AFSHAAN JIWAJI KAPASI
Art has always been a profound expression of culture, history, and identity. In Canada, Indigenous art stands as a vibrant testament to the rich heritage and diverse traditions of Indigenous peoples. However, amidst the celebration of this cultural wealth, a troubling issue looms large – the prevalence of counterfeit Indigenous art. Afshaan Jiwaji Kapasi & Melissa Tarsitano explore the complexities of counterfeit Indigenous art and offer opportunities to safeguard and authentically celebrate Indigenous art.
TopicsAnti-Counterfeiting Committee Indigenous

MISSION

Our mission is to enhance our members’ expertise as trusted intellectual property advisors, and to shape a policy and business environment that encourages the development, use, and value of intellectual property.


VISION

Our vision is for IPIC to be the leading authority on intellectual property in Canada, and the voice of intellectual property professionals.

LATEST TWEETS

Twitter feed is currently not available

CONTACT US

360 Albert Street, Suite 550
Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7

T 613-234-0516
E admin@ipic.ca

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The IPIC office is located in Ottawa, on the traditional, unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

©2021 Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, Ottawa, ON
Designed by Ottawa Web Design driven by Member Management Software