Comments on: Arbitration for the Quick and Final Resolution of Disputes? Hardly. http://ablawg.ca/2010/04/22/arbitration-for-the-quick-and-final-resolution-of-disputes-hardly/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:21:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Mietwohnungen Köln Porz http://ablawg.ca/2010/04/22/arbitration-for-the-quick-and-final-resolution-of-disputes-hardly/#comment-107703 Mietwohnungen Köln Porz Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:57:54 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/04/22/arbitration-for-the-quick-and-final-resolution-of-disputes-hardly/#comment-107703 Arbitration isnt always an effective way to solve problems. To me, mostly, its just a lame way to find a compromise that fits for both sides. But both have make huge concessions. Arbitration isnt always an effective way to solve problems. To me, mostly, its just a lame way to find a compromise that fits for both sides. But both have make huge concessions.

]]> By: Leslie Morris http://ablawg.ca/2010/04/22/arbitration-for-the-quick-and-final-resolution-of-disputes-hardly/#comment-92739 Leslie Morris Sat, 01 May 2010 07:08:24 +0000 http://ablawg.ca/2010/04/22/arbitration-for-the-quick-and-final-resolution-of-disputes-hardly/#comment-92739 Jonnette, Your article raises an excellent point - arbitration is, at least in my experience, not always an efficient, cost effective way of dealing with disputes. I have had considerable experience with the Alberta New Home Warranty arbitration process representing both builders and homeowners. (Arbitration is required in all ANHWP contracts - not that most home buyers are aware of this at the time of purchase.) A number of these cases have dragged on for years at considerable expense to both parties, in fact far more than they might have paid if they had been able to go to Court in the first place. (And, further, at least court costs are recoverable. Under ANHWP Rules, parties cannot claim costs for legal representation. Fees charged by the Arbitrator are, however, recoverable, but not always awarded to the successful party.) Just this past January we finally received an Award in a matter where the application to arbitrate was filed in November 2003. At least that Award was issued within 30 days of the (December 2009) hearing per ANHWP Rules. On another file the Arbitrator took eight months to issue an Award after a three week hearing spread over several months (and again, more than five years after the filing of the original Application to Arbitrate). In that case the parties advised the Arbitrator at the conclusion of the hearing that they didn't expect he would complete his Award in the usual 30 days (there being more than 100 exhibits including a half dozen expert reports). Having allowed the Arbitrator that leeway (and even if we hadn't) do you want to be the solicitor that harasses an arbitrator for an Award? In the most recent case, one of the parties has filed a judicial review/leave to appeal application at Queen's Bench. And so we re-engage with the scheduling of a special Chambers application complete with affidavits, briefs and etc. The ANHWP is currently reviewing its rules. It is expected that at the very least the new rules will allow parties to claim their solicitor costs. So now, a party will have to consider that losing will mean they not only pay their own solicitor, but probably all of the Arbitrator's fees and all or a portion of opposing counsel's fees. Queen's Bench is looking far more cost effective. Add that to the real possibility there will not be a "quick" resolution, arbitration, ain't what it's cracked up to be. Just my two cents worth. Leslie Morris Jonnette,

Your article raises an excellent point - arbitration is, at least in my experience, not always an efficient, cost effective way of dealing with disputes. I have had considerable experience with the Alberta New Home Warranty arbitration process representing both builders and homeowners. (Arbitration is required in all ANHWP contracts - not that most home buyers are aware of this at the time of purchase.) A number of these cases have dragged on for years at considerable expense to both parties, in fact far more than they might have paid if they had been able to go to Court in the first place. (And, further, at least court costs are recoverable. Under ANHWP Rules, parties cannot claim costs for legal representation. Fees charged by the Arbitrator are, however, recoverable, but not always awarded to the successful party.) Just this past January we finally received an Award in a matter where the application to arbitrate was filed in November 2003. At least that Award was issued within 30 days of the (December 2009) hearing per ANHWP Rules. On another file the Arbitrator took eight months to issue an Award after a three week hearing spread over several months (and again, more than five years after the filing of the original Application to Arbitrate). In that case the parties advised the Arbitrator at the conclusion of the hearing that they didn’t expect he would complete his Award in the usual 30 days (there being more than 100 exhibits including a half dozen expert reports). Having allowed the Arbitrator that leeway (and even if we hadn’t) do you want to be the solicitor that harasses an arbitrator for an Award?
In the most recent case, one of the parties has filed a judicial review/leave to appeal application at Queen’s Bench. And so we re-engage with the scheduling of a special Chambers application complete with affidavits, briefs and etc.
The ANHWP is currently reviewing its rules. It is expected that at the very least the new rules will allow parties to claim their solicitor costs. So now, a party will have to consider that losing will mean they not only pay their own solicitor, but probably all of the Arbitrator’s fees and all or a portion of opposing counsel’s fees. Queen’s Bench is looking far more cost effective. Add that to the real possibility there will not be a “quick” resolution, arbitration, ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.
Just my two cents worth.
Leslie Morris

]]>