 | 
ARBITRATION:
The sharing of the family residenceSituation: Sylvie and Jean have
lived together for 15 years. At the time of their separation, they shared a residence
worth $130,000, which had a mortgage of $80,000, leaving an equity of $50,000.
Sylvie and Jean do not agree on the partition of the residence's equity. According
to Sylvie, she is entitled to half of the equity, namely $25,000, as she is debt-free
apart from her share in the mortgage. Jean does not share this point of view.
During their living together, he contracted debts of $20,000 for the couple's
expenses. His version of the facts is therefore the following : to pay off the
debt of $20,000 from the equity and divide the balance of $30,000 in half. The
question: What is the equitable amount that should be given to Sylvie as well
as to Jean? To settle the question, Sylvie and Jean chose arbitration. The
arbitrator's decision: After hearing both versions from Sylvie and Jean, the
arbitrator concluded that from the $50,000 equity of the house, a sum of $10,000
should be used to reimburse a part of Jean's debts as they really benefited both
parties. As for the other $10,000 worth of debts, Jean was unable to supply the
supporting documents confirming that these debts had really been contracted to
the advantage of both parties. Therefore, Sylvie obtained $20,000 and Jean $20,000
on the $50,000 equity. The balance of $10,000 will be used to reimburse Jean's
debts. The advantages of this arbitration: The case was settled within
15 days instead of two years should it have gone to Court. Sylvie and Jean paid
50% of the arbitrator's fees, namely $700 each, whereas that before the Court,
costs would have varied from $5,000 to $10,000. The arbitrator's decision was
final and without appeal, whereas had it gone to court, the case could have been
appealed resulting in additional delays from two to four years. The arbitration
took place in the arbitrator's office, in a relaxed atmosphere with flexible rules
and with respect. The hearing before the arbitrator took place in a confidential
manner.
|
MEDIATION:
The neighbor's path The situation: Bernard and Louis own two adjacent
properties, near a magnificent lake in the municipality of St. Paul. Bernard has
access to his property using a beautiful path he had had built at the cost of
$10,000. As for Louis, the road leading to his land is in a pitiful state, having
been neglected for nearly 30 years. It would cost Louis approximately $10,000
to have it brought back to shape. Louis felt that Bernard's path would do very
well and that it would be an easy and direct passage to his property. But Bernard
refuses to share his new road… there was no way he would let a stranger use
his road to his private property. Faced with this refusal, Louis undertook court
procedures to win the case. These procedures were vigorously contested by Bernard.
After two years before the Court, each party accumulated lawyer fees of approximatively
$50,000. It would have taken at least another year before the Court to finalize
this case when Bernard and Louis agreed to mediation. The question:
How will Louis have access to his property by using the best road possible without
encumbering his neighbor, Bernard? The agreement: Mediation lasted
one day. At the end, Bernard and Louis, assisted by their respective solicitors
and in the presence of the mediator, came to an agreement in the following manner:
Bernard would discuss with his other neighbors to obtain their authorization to
build an access road to Louis' land. Bernard would undertake the construction
work and Louis would provide the sum of $12,000, made payable to Louis, for the
construction of the access road. The advantages of this mediation: After
one day of mediation, Bernard and Louis had found a solution to the conflict that
had opposed them for more than two years before the Court. The mediation session
represented a minimal cost compared to the continuation of court procedures, as
they would have had to pay their lawyers' fees for an additional period of at
least one year. At the end of mediation, Bernard and Louis shook hands, the solution
was agreeable to Bernard since he was maintaining the private status of his road,
and to Louis as he would have a brand new road leading to his property. Bernard
and Louis found themselves in a win-win situation by deciding themselves on the
best appropriate solution for their dilemma, whereas had they continued before
the Court, it is more than likely they would have found themselves in a loser-winner
situation faced with a judge's decision for which they would have had no control.
|
NEGOTIATION:
A traveling truckThe situation: Jeanne and Robert owned a gravel
transport business. Jeanne no longer showed interest in the business and, furthermore,
she no longer got along with Robert. So she decided to sell her business share
to Robert for the sum of $20,000. This sale was however conditional to Robert
assuming the business' truck rental contract and releasing Jeanne from her responsibility
in said contract. Robert accepted and signed the documents which then made him
sole proprietor of the business. In the following days, Robert contacted the holding
finance company for the rental of the truck. He then found out that the rental
payment was three months late. Robert proposed to reimburse the past due months
and continue his rental payments, but the finance company refused and insisted
on taking back the truck. Robert called Jeanne to advise her of the situation
as she was responsible for taking care of the company's accounts. Jeanne refused
to intervene and also refused to remit to Robert several documents and cheques
payable to the business. Robert then decided to return the truck to Jeanne. Then
Jeanne returned it to the finance company. Unfortunately, the entanglements did
not end there. The finance company was seeking $15,000 from Jeanne, since
she was the surety for the business, the truck's repairs, the exceeding mileage
and for the value depreciation. Jeanne then went against Robert and took him to
court for the sum of $20,000, including her upcoming lawyer's fees. Robert vigorously
contested Jeanne's legal action and argued that she failed to honor the contract
by refusing to give him the business documents, and, that through her fault, he
lost the business truck because of overdue rental payments and the finance company's
decision to take the truck back. The question: Who should be held
responsible for the payment of the sum of $15,000 claimed by the finance company? The
results of the negotiation: Jeanne and Robert have met, assisted by their
solicitors, and have decided to split the bill of $15,000 in half for the following
reasons: the uncertainty of the results arising from legal proceedings; substantial
lawyer fees for each one of them; the advantages and inconveniences of each party
in this case. The advantages of this negotiation: Jeanne and Robert
have reduced to the maximum the risks of a loser-winner situation; they have maintained
control on the decision process; the negotiation was fast, simple, flexible, at
a lesser cost; no one lost face; the return to communication and discussion was
made possible for Jeanne and Robert.
|
|
