The source of Alternative Dispute Resolution information, resources and expertise in Alberta Alberta’s professional association of mediators, arbitrators and other ADR practitioners

You are here: Home / ADRIA Blog: ADR News

Stay up-to-date on our latest news, events, articles, training and resources with our blog:

Partner With the ADR Institute of Alberta

Last Updated:

Connect your brand with a trusted network of professionals, decision-makers, and industry leaders across Alberta. Our advertising opportunities are designed to help your business increase visibility, build credibility, and stay top-of-mind with a highly engaged professional audience.

Whether you’re looking for a single promotional feature or year-round exposure, we offer flexible partnership packages tailored to your marketing goals.

Why Advertise With Us?

  • Reach a growing network of professionals and organizations
  • Showcase your brand through trusted industry channels
  • Gain visibility across email newsletters and social media
  • Drive engagement with clickable links and featured promotions
  • Build long-term recognition within Alberta’s ADR community

Let’s Grow Together

Promote your business with a trusted professional network and connect directly with an engaged audience that values collaboration, education, and professional development.

Interested in becoming a partner?
Contact us today at execdir@adralberta.com to learn more or secure your package.

Partner With the ADR Institute of AlbertaRead More

Transformed by Practice: Key Takeaways from the ADRIC National Conference 2025

Last Updated:

As a new member of ADRIA, I felt so fortunate to have the opportunity to attend the ADRIC conference in Vancouver, on October 22 to 24. 

The People

I was pleasantly surprised to see people from diverse geographical and professional backgrounds attending. I met Mediators, Arbitrators, Lawyers who are now Arbitrators, and Restorative Justice practitioners. Each one of them practiced in a different field and I may have been the only person working specifically in human rights. Without a doubt, ADR practitioners work in such a wide range of areas where conflicts can arise. The diversity of attendees confirmed for me that our occupation is, not only in good health, but necessary for the benefits of all. I strongly believe that ADR practitioners work to resolve conflicts before they grow. 

The sessions

There was a variety of sessions to choose from; it was a challenge to decide which ones to attend. Fortunately, many leads and resources were made available for each session to satisfy anyone’s curiosity and interest in learning more about any unfamiliar areas of ADR.

I particularly liked the discussion around Indigenous Pathways Initiatives for ADR. The session focused on how we can better integrate other models of ADR into our respective practices. The suggestions that were made about consulting with Indigenous partners and learning from their teachings should provide directions in how ADR approaches can be expanded.   

In the same spirit, I also liked the session given by Matt Thorpe, Lean in and Deepen the Practice of Facilitation and Mediation. Matt had everyone sit in a circle and modeled to the participants his approach to solving conflicts. He triggered emotional responses from participants. We had to introspect and reveal ourselves. I am confident to say that he captivated everyone’s attention. He emphasized that when we are totally present with another person (or with a group for that matter), it allows us to tune to this person’s reality and back stories. I understood that to be one of the essential steps to successfully resolve conflicts: “Conflict is about those underlying stories that the other party does not know about”. It was truly a transformative session; I was not the only one expressing that I wanted to know more about how this emotions-thoughts provoking session change people for the better. 

A quote summarizing the session would be: “Transformation is about unlearning”. 

Another session, that may also “transform” my own sessions was Sorry – Not Sorry! The Art of Apologies in Mediation.

It asked a simple question: “Why is it that you can’t resolve a dispute?” The session focused on the need to discuss the benefits of an apology with parties, and as facilitators, how we can open that discussion. We remove the reason(s) why the dispute can’t be resolved and focus on the apology or moving forward. A quote I wrote: “In an apology, one gets specifics on emotions/impacts, it does not get specifics on facts.” It was also very inspiring to hear the participants answering the host’s question: What are the benefits of an apology? We came up with over ten!!! The presenters also suggested steps to set the stage with parties to have this same discussion about the benefits of an Apology. 

The session Holistic Dispute Resolution: CAB’s Human Centered Approach, retained my attention. The Aga Khan Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Canada presented their Holistic Approach to ADR, said to be built on 1,400-year Islamic tradition of dispute resolution. They provided informative statistics on a conflict root causes analysis. When we look at the root causes of matrimonial disputes, family matters, or commercial cases, it is interesting to see the differences to consider in our ADR approaches.

I benefitted very much from this conference. ADR practitioners with so much quantitative and qualitative experience share their knowledge because it is important knowledge. I came back home with so much to integrate in my practice development. For sure, an experience, I want to repeat. See you à Montréal, next year for the next Annual ADRIC conference!

Transformed by Practice: Key Takeaways from the ADRIC National Conference 2025Read More

The Illusion of Control: Why Overly Complex ADR Clauses Can Backfire 

Last Updated:

A results-oriented Contract Management leader with 10+ years of experience across the full contract lifecycle—drafting, strategic management, and practical application—in sectors including mining, energy, finance, and technology. Joánri has handled agreements from daily operational needs to complex, multi-year master contracts exceeding a billion dollars. Now, she applies this expertise to guide individuals and businesses through contract disputes, optimization, and implementation.

While the intention behind including an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause in commercial contracts is often to provide a clear and efficient route for resolving disagreements outside of the traditional courtroom, the desire for absolute certainty can sometimes lead to overly complex clauses that ultimately undermine this very aim. 

The initial appeal of a highly detailed, almost court-like ADR process is understandable. It offers a perceived sense of control and predictability by meticulously outlining each step. However, this approach can often inadvertently create a ‘court process by another name’, replicating the very complexities and potential delays that ADR is intended to avoid. 

The Pitfalls of Overly Prescriptive ADR Clauses 

  • Disputes as Part of the Agreement Lifecycle: 
    • When the primary focus shifts to meticulously adhering to every procedural detail of an overly complex clause, the actual substance of the dispute can become secondary. Parties may become more concerned with ‘ticking the boxes’ of the process than with actively seeking a mutually acceptable and pragmatic resolution, thereby undermining the fundamental purpose of ADR. 
    • Overly rigid timelines can create procedural breaches due to practical challenges in gathering information or agreeing on a neutral. 
    • Disputes rarely unfold in a predictable manner. Overly detailed clauses often lack the necessary flexibility to adapt to the specific and evolving circumstances of a particular disagreement. Rigid procedural steps can also limit the arbitrator or mediator’s ability to guide the process effectively and tailor it to the specific needs of the dispute. In other words – neither the parties’ purpose, not the arbitrator or mediator function, is enabled. 
  • Increased Costs: 
    • Mandating specific and/ or external technical experts at various stages, even in straightforward disputes, can significantly inflate costs and make the ADR process disproportionately expensive. 
    • Overly prescriptive provisions relating to the arbitrator themself, especially those specifying highly niche expertise or requiring a panel of multiple arbitrators, can further increase costs. Finding individuals who meet these specific criteria within the stipulated timelines can become exceedingly difficult and costly, leading to further delays and frustration for the parties. 

In instances where these clauses are used and many of the challenges above are applicable, it may even frustrate the intention of the clause altogether and make the described dispute resolution clause functionally ineffective. Pretty to look at certainly, but useless in practice. 

The Benefits of Dispute-Responsive Clauses: 

In contrast to these overly prescriptive approaches, dispute-responsive clauses, such as a progressive dispute resolution clause, offer a more pragmatic and adaptable framework that provides the flexibility for the parties to agree on the specific dispute and mediation and/ or arbitration process for it. This allows for: 

  • Flexibility and Adaptability: Tailoring the process to the specific needs of the dispute and available mediators or arbitrators, leading to more efficient and cost-effective resolutions. 
  • Focus on Substance: Keeping the attention on the actual issues in dispute and encouraging parties to work towards a resolution, rather than being bogged down trying to check procedural boxes. 
  • Reduced Costs: Avoiding unnecessary steps and the involvement of excessive personnel. 
  • Greater Efficiency: Allowing parties to move through the process more quickly and reach a resolution sooner. 

Conclusion: 

While a desire for absolute certainty and control when drafting ADR clauses is understandable, overly complex and prescriptive approaches can often backfire and make the process unusable. Dispute-responsive clauses, which prioritise flexibility for both the parties and an arbitrator or mediator and the ability to tailor the process to the specific needs of the dispute, are often far more effective in achieving the core goals of ADR: efficient, cost-effective, and mutually acceptable resolutions that help preserve valuable business relationships. 

Disclaimer: This article offers general commentary and suggestions for consideration by ADR practitioners. It is not intended as a substitute for professional legal advice, and practitioners are responsible for exercising their own professional judgment and seeking specific legal guidance when advising clients or drafting legal documents. 

The Illusion of Control: Why Overly Complex ADR Clauses Can Backfire Read More

ADRIC National Conference 2025: Vancouver Edition

Last Updated:

What happens in Vancouver stays in Vancouver, but when it comes to the ADRIC National Conference at the Douglas Hotel, I feel it’s only fair to share some of the highlights—especially the ones involving upside-down name badges and exotic hors d’oeuvres. 

On October 22-24, 2025, I had the privilege to attend the much-anticipated annual gathering of Canada’s ADR aficionados. The festivities kicked off with a cocktail reception on the evening of the 22nd and my valiant attempt to network while balancing a tiny plate, a drink, and what I hope was a spring roll (the jury is still out).

The main event unfolded over October 23rd and 24th, with Carla Bekkering, Michael Schafler, and a record 255 professionals from coast to coast convened to exchange wisdom, stories, and sometimes business cards. The conference promised a whirlwind of engaging discussions, insightful panels, and enough coffee to sustain the most dedicated of neutrals. With Vancouver’s rain providing the perfect backdrop, the ADRIC crowd proved once again that, whether resolving disputes or battling umbrella malfunctions, Canadians do it with style—and a healthy dose of humour.

Flanked by my two new conference friends, Valerie and Sara, the event kicked off with a classic case of “who’s on first?” as Gary Lacasse and Stacey Rose tried to figure out who was introducing whom. 

The 2024 financial statements were presented and, most importantly, showed that the Institute is not broke and everyone is still friends with the auditors. A slate of directors was announced, and membership is stable at 2,200. The social media reach is so impressive that even your grandma might have seen a post from ADRIC.

The Honourable Wally Oppal charmed the crowd with tales of legal reform, cross-examination, and the importance of resolving disputes without turning every disagreement into a courtroom drama. He also reminded everyone that judges are people too, even if they do get special treatment in elevators.

I enjoyed every session I attended, but I am limited to reporting on only two as follows. 

The Tariff Tango

Canada and the U.S. are doing the “Tariff Two-Step” and trying to keep up with a landscape that changes faster than you can say “reciprocal duties.” Every time you blink, there’s a new policy, tariff, or a new reason to call your lawyer on a Saturday morning.

The session title had a typo—no, it’s not about “terror-related disputes”; it’s all about how tariffs are crashing the ADR party and making everyone rethink their contracts.

Canada and the U.S. have been hitting tariffs back and forth like a couple of caffeinated baseball pros. One day it’s steel, the next it’s aluminium, and don’t even get started on softwood lumber.

It turns out, most contracts weren’t written with a “tariff apocalypse” in mind. But now the scramble is on to figure out if they cover these new headaches or if they need to add a “tariff tantrum” clause for next time. Is a tariff a force majeure event? Is it a change in law? Or is it just another reason to renegotiate the price and hope nobody notices the fine print? 

The advice: add risk allocation clauses, price adjustment clauses, and maybe an early warning system and mitigation strategy in the future so everyone can panic together when the next tariff hits. And if all else fails, just renegotiate, terminate, or pray for free trade.

Lessons Learned from Complex Multi-Party Construction Arbitrations

A group of legal and technical experts, each with more credentials than a Swiss Army knife, gathered in Vancouver to discuss the wild world of construction arbitration. This is what I enjoyed and learned:

Drafting Arbitration Clauses

  • Rule #1: Make sure everyone knows what the clause is for. Is it mandatory? Optional? Written in Klingon?
  • Rule #2: Check your jurisdiction. You don’t want to end up arbitrating in Quebec when you thought you were in Ontario.
  • Rule #3: Consistency is key. If your contracts are a patchwork quilt of rules, expect chaos.
  • Rule #4: Don’t just copy and paste from the internet. That is how you end up with four different dispute processes in four different countries and a headache that even the best arbitrator can’t fix.

Choosing Rules and Institutions

  • Institutional rules can bring order, but sometimes you want the flexibility to run for the hills (or at least to another forum).
  • Once you pick an institution, you’re stuck with it—like a gym membership you can’t cancel.

Experts: Early Birds or Late Arrivals?

  • Bring in experts early, and they’ll help you keep your ducks (and documents) in a row.
  • But beware: if your expert gets too cozy with the team, they might lose their independent badge and become just another member of the project’s group chat.
  • The ideal? Two experts: one for advice, one for testifying. But unless the client is made of money, good luck with that!

Arbitrator Selection

  • Lawyers love lawyers, but sometimes you need someone who knows what a hard hat is.
  • For complex disputes, a panel of three might be better—think of it as assembling the Avengers, but for construction law.
  • Pick arbitrators who can actually show up (not just in spirit) and who can keep the process from spiralling into a months-long saga.

Virtual vs. In-Person Hearings

  • Virtual hearings are fine—unless you need to stare someone down to see if they’re lying.
  • Some witnesses are better live, especially if they have a thick accent and a killer PowerPoint.
  • Lawyers love to draft witness statements, but sometimes the witness reads them and says, “Wait, I said that?”

Experts Galore

  • Too many experts? Prepare for a domino effect of delays and last-minute panic.
  • Joint reports and hot-tubbing (expert conferencing, not a spa day) can help, but don’t expect everyone to suddenly agree and sing Kumbaya.

Why You Should Attend Next Year

Beautiful Venue

If this year’s venue is anything to go by, then ADRIC put on a “good do,” and there’s even time to go out and sample the local restaurants and bars.

Charming Company

I mean, who doesn’t want to catch up with old friends, make new ones, and get the inside information on how to get onto the new roster?

Networking Olympics 

Where else can you balance a tiny plate, a drink, and a questionable spring roll while trying to remember everyone’s name? And it’s the only place where upside-down name badges are a fashion statement.

Legendary Speakers 

You’ll hear tales of legal reform, cross-examination, and why judges get special treatment in elevators. Plus, you’ll learn that resolving disputes doesn’t have to turn every disagreement into a courtroom drama.

If you want to survive in the wild world of ADR, draft carefully, pick your team wisely, and always check who’s in the penalty box before dinner. And remember: what happens in Vancouver stays in Vancouver—unless it’s too funny not to share.

ADRIC National Conference 2025: Vancouver EditionRead More

Honouring David Gould: A Founding Member, Former Board Member, and Leader in ADR

Last Updated:

The ADR Institute of Alberta (ADRIA) is pleased to recognize and honour David Gould (LL.B., K.C., C. Med.) — a long-time member, board contributor, and one of the most influential figures in the growth of mediation and conflict resolution in Alberta and across Canada. With more than three decades of leadership in the field, David’s career reflects both the evolution of ADR in our province and the power of dialogue to create meaningful resolution.

A Career Rooted in ADR Innovation

David’s journey into mediation began in the late 1980s, when a chance encounter led him to training with the Justice Institute of British Columbia. This spark turned into a lifelong vocation. Soon after, he became a founding partner of the Canadian Dispute Resolution Corporation (CDRC), which provided much-needed mediation services for insurance claims across Canada at a time when the industry faced a crushing backlog. Under his leadership, CDRC grew to four offices nationwide and trained more than 140 mediators to meet this demand.

Over the years, David’s practice expanded into the energy, regulatory, business, and municipal sectors. Most notably, he led the design of the Appropriate Dispute Resolution (ADR) system for the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (AEUB 1999) and later for the National Energy Board (NEB 2001). These programs became models for how industry, regulators, and communities could engage in constructive dialogue. In 2004, David co-facilitated the CAPLA Company-to-Company (C2C) Task Force Report, which provided energy companies with practical guidance for selecting the most appropriate processes to resolve conflict and strengthen business relationships.

Beyond Canada, David’s career extended onto the international stage. In 2008, when the Harvard Negotiation Insight Initiative concluded its five-year term at Harvard Law School, David was asked to chair its successor, the Global Negotiation Insight Institute (GNII). In this role, he guided the organization’s transition and advanced its mission of integrating ethical, philosophical, and spiritual wisdom traditions into mainstream professional practice — including law, business, and conflict management. Through this work, David had the privilege of collaborating with leading voices in law and negotiation, helping to expand the conversation on how culture and values shape approaches to conflict resolution.

Reflections on ADRIA Membership

David’s connection to ADRIA stretches back to its early days, when it was still known as theAlberta Arbitration and Mediation Society (AAMS) (founded in 1982). A certified mediator and former board member, he has witnessed firsthand the organization’s transformation into a vital hub for education, networking, and professional standards in ADR.

Looking back, David notes that ADRIA’s greatest strength has always been its ability to balance training and service to members. While there were spirited debates in the early years about whether the Institute should primarily support mediators or lead in training, ADRIA ultimately embraced both roles — a decision that has sustained its growth and its importance to the profession.

Over the decades, David has valued ADRIA not only as a professional home, but also as a community that champions excellence in mediation and supports the next generation of practitioners.

Words of Advice for Future Practitioners

When asked what guidance he would share with today’s ADR professionals, David highlights the importance of adaptability. The fields of insurance and energy mediation, once central to his work, have shifted dramatically due to regulatory and industry changes. However, new opportunities are emerging in areas such as estates, family enterprise, and community conflict.

Above all, he encourages practitioners to focus on the heart of mediation: helping people shift from fault and blame in the past to collaboration and possibility in the future.

“In every mediation I’ve done, there’s been a moment when I knew the parties were going to settle. It’s when they stop talking about the past and begin talking about the future and how to get there together.”

A Lasting Legacy

David Gould’s career has been defined by leadership, innovation, and generosity of spirit. From his pioneering work with CDRC, to designing conflict management systems for regulators, to serving on ADRIA’s board and mentoring others, his contributions have left an enduring mark on the ADR community.

On behalf of ADRIA and its members, we extend our gratitude to David for his vision, service, and friendship, and we wish him joy and fulfillment in the next chapter of his journey.

Honouring David Gould: A Founding Member, Former Board Member, and Leader in ADRRead More

Transformed by Practice: Key Takeaways from the ADRIC National Conference 2025

Last Updated:

As a new member of ADRIA, I felt so fortunate to have the opportunity to attend the ADRIC conference in Vancouver, on October 22 to 24. 

The People

I was pleasantly surprised to see people from diverse geographical and professional backgrounds attending. I met Mediators, Arbitrators, Lawyers who are now Arbitrators, and Restorative Justice practitioners. Each one of them practiced in a different field and I may have been the only person working specifically in human rights. Without a doubt, ADR practitioners work in such a wide range of areas where conflicts can arise. The diversity of attendees confirmed for me that our occupation is, not only in good health, but necessary for the benefits of all. I strongly believe that ADR practitioners work to resolve conflicts before they grow. 

The sessions

There was a variety of sessions to choose from; it was a challenge to decide which ones to attend. Fortunately, many leads and resources were made available for each session to satisfy anyone’s curiosity and interest in learning more about any unfamiliar areas of ADR.

I particularly liked the discussion around Indigenous Pathways Initiatives for ADR. The session focused on how we can better integrate other models of ADR into our respective practices. The suggestions that were made about consulting with Indigenous partners and learning from their teachings should provide directions in how ADR approaches can be expanded.   

In the same spirit, I also liked the session given by Matt Thorpe, Lean in and Deepen the Practice of Facilitation and Mediation. Matt had everyone sit in a circle and modeled to the participants his approach to solving conflicts. He triggered emotional responses from participants. We had to introspect and reveal ourselves. I am confident to say that he captivated everyone’s attention. He emphasized that when we are totally present with another person (or with a group for that matter), it allows us to tune to this person’s reality and back stories. I understood that to be one of the essential steps to successfully resolve conflicts: “Conflict is about those underlying stories that the other party does not know about”. It was truly a transformative session; I was not the only one expressing that I wanted to know more about how this emotions-thoughts provoking session change people for the better. 

A quote summarizing the session would be: “Transformation is about unlearning”. 

Another session, that may also “transform” my own sessions was Sorry – Not Sorry! The Art of Apologies in Mediation.

It asked a simple question: “Why is it that you can’t resolve a dispute?” The session focused on the need to discuss the benefits of an apology with parties, and as facilitators, how we can open that discussion. We remove the reason(s) why the dispute can’t be resolved and focus on the apology or moving forward. A quote I wrote: “In an apology, one gets specifics on emotions/impacts, it does not get specifics on facts.” It was also very inspiring to hear the participants answering the host’s question: What are the benefits of an apology? We came up with over ten!!! The presenters also suggested steps to set the stage with parties to have this same discussion about the benefits of an Apology. 

The session Holistic Dispute Resolution: CAB’s Human Centered Approach, retained my attention. The Aga Khan Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Canada presented their Holistic Approach to ADR, said to be built on 1,400-year Islamic tradition of dispute resolution. They provided informative statistics on a conflict root causes analysis. When we look at the root causes of matrimonial disputes, family matters, or commercial cases, it is interesting to see the differences to consider in our ADR approaches.

I benefitted very much from this conference. ADR practitioners with so much quantitative and qualitative experience share their knowledge because it is important knowledge. I came back home with so much to integrate in my practice development. For sure, an experience, I want to repeat. See you à Montréal, next year for the next Annual ADRIC conference!

Transformed by Practice: Key Takeaways from the ADRIC National Conference 2025Read More

Transformed by Practice: Key Takeaways from the ADRIC National Conference 2025

Last Updated:

As a new member of ADRIA, I felt so fortunate to have the opportunity to attend the ADRIC conference in Vancouver, on October 22 to 24. 

The People

I was pleasantly surprised to see people from diverse geographical and professional backgrounds attending. I met Mediators, Arbitrators, Lawyers who are now Arbitrators, and Restorative Justice practitioners. Each one of them practiced in a different field and I may have been the only person working specifically in human rights. Without a doubt, ADR practitioners work in such a wide range of areas where conflicts can arise. The diversity of attendees confirmed for me that our occupation is, not only in good health, but necessary for the benefits of all. I strongly believe that ADR practitioners work to resolve conflicts before they grow. 

The sessions

There was a variety of sessions to choose from; it was a challenge to decide which ones to attend. Fortunately, many leads and resources were made available for each session to satisfy anyone’s curiosity and interest in learning more about any unfamiliar areas of ADR.

I particularly liked the discussion around Indigenous Pathways Initiatives for ADR. The session focused on how we can better integrate other models of ADR into our respective practices. The suggestions that were made about consulting with Indigenous partners and learning from their teachings should provide directions in how ADR approaches can be expanded.   

In the same spirit, I also liked the session given by Matt Thorpe, Lean in and Deepen the Practice of Facilitation and Mediation. Matt had everyone sit in a circle and modeled to the participants his approach to solving conflicts. He triggered emotional responses from participants. We had to introspect and reveal ourselves. I am confident to say that he captivated everyone’s attention. He emphasized that when we are totally present with another person (or with a group for that matter), it allows us to tune to this person’s reality and back stories. I understood that to be one of the essential steps to successfully resolve conflicts: “Conflict is about those underlying stories that the other party does not know about”. It was truly a transformative session; I was not the only one expressing that I wanted to know more about how this emotions-thoughts provoking session change people for the better. 

A quote summarizing the session would be: “Transformation is about unlearning”. 

Another session, that may also “transform” my own sessions was Sorry – Not Sorry! The Art of Apologies in Mediation.

It asked a simple question: “Why is it that you can’t resolve a dispute?” The session focused on the need to discuss the benefits of an apology with parties, and as facilitators, how we can open that discussion. We remove the reason(s) why the dispute can’t be resolved and focus on the apology or moving forward. A quote I wrote: “In an apology, one gets specifics on emotions/impacts, it does not get specifics on facts.” It was also very inspiring to hear the participants answering the host’s question: What are the benefits of an apology? We came up with over ten!!! The presenters also suggested steps to set the stage with parties to have this same discussion about the benefits of an Apology. 

The session Holistic Dispute Resolution: CAB’s Human Centered Approach, retained my attention. The Aga Khan Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Canada presented their Holistic Approach to ADR, said to be built on 1,400-year Islamic tradition of dispute resolution. They provided informative statistics on a conflict root causes analysis. When we look at the root causes of matrimonial disputes, family matters, or commercial cases, it is interesting to see the differences to consider in our ADR approaches.

I benefitted very much from this conference. ADR practitioners with so much quantitative and qualitative experience share their knowledge because it is important knowledge. I came back home with so much to integrate in my practice development. For sure, an experience, I want to repeat. See you à Montréal, next year for the next Annual ADRIC conference!

Transformed by Practice: Key Takeaways from the ADRIC National Conference 2025Read More

Building Resilience into Agreements: The Power and Nuances of Progressive Dispute Resolution 

Last Updated:

A results-oriented Contract Management leader with 10+ years of experience across the full contract lifecycle—drafting, strategic management, and practical application—in sectors including mining, energy, finance, and technology. Joánri has handled agreements from daily operational needs to complex, multi-year master contracts exceeding a billion dollars. Now, she applies this expertise to guide individuals and businesses through contract disputes, optimization, and implementation.

Contracts form the basis of commercial interaction, setting out the framework for collaboration and mutual benefit. However, even with careful planning, disagreements are a natural part of doing business. The real strength of a solid agreement lies not in avoiding disputes altogether, but in having effective ways to deal with them constructively. 

Progressive dispute resolution clauses offer just that – a structured, step-by-step approach to resolving conflicts that can encourage communication, maintain relationships, and ultimately lead to more efficient and mutually beneficial results. This structured approach recognises that not all disagreements require the same level of intervention, often allowing minor issues to be resolved quickly through initial, informal discussions at the appropriate technical level. 

The Multi-Layered Benefits of a Progressive Approach 

Benefits for the Contracting Parties: 

  • Disputes as Part of the Agreement Lifecycle: 

By acknowledging that disagreements are a natural part of the contract lifecycle and requiring initial discussions between appropriate personnel, progressive clauses prioritise direct communication and stop small disputes from becoming very big disputes unnecessarily. By requiring technical staff from the area in dispute to engage first, it can also foster a deeper understanding of the other party’s perspective and can lead to early, mutually agreeable solutions for emerging issues. 

  • Strategic Escalation with Enhanced Knowledge: 

As disputes progress through defined stages, they involve individuals with increasing authority and a broader business understanding. This enables well-informed decisions as each escalation point decision-maker has the benefit of the information and outcomes gathered in the step before as well as their own knowledge and experience. 

  • Preserving the Foundation of Relationships: 

By prioritising early-stage discussions and mediation, progressive clauses are designed to safeguard the ongoing relationship between the parties, particularly crucial in long-term collaborations where mutual trust is essential. The initial focus is on problem-solving rather than adversarial positions. 

This approach can also support success during the contract lifecycle where the parties may have experienced turnover of key staff or teams. In those instances, past relationships and understanding of the agreements and applicable processes may have been lost in the shuffle, and by requiring the parties to re-engage progressively, what was lost can start to be rebuilt. 

  • Unlocking Creative and Tailored Solutions: 

The staged approach often leads to a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of the underlying issues for all parties. This deeper insight can pave the way for creative, tailored, and mutually beneficial solutions that might not surface in a more confrontational environment. 

Benefits for the ADR Professional: 

  • Enhanced Information: 

By the time a dispute reaches mediation or arbitration, the parties will have already engaged in multiple rounds of discussion and negotiation. This thorough groundwork provides a much clearer technical understanding, understanding of the core issues for both the parties as well as the mediator or arbitrator, each party’s current position, and the potential broader impact of the dispute. 

  • Facilitating Focused and Productive Processes: 

The enhanced knowledge gained from the progressive steps allows mediators to conduct more focused and productive sessions. For arbitrators, it can significantly streamline the arbitration process by clarifying the points of contention and the history of attempts at resolution. 

  • Innovative Solutions: 

With the benefit of the progressive steps, the parties will also have been enabled to ‘test’ initial solutions to the current dispute and have a deeper understanding of why it may/ may not work. They may also then have more time to gain the benefit of the knowledge, experience, and insight of their technical staff to create more ‘creative’ and sustainable solutions. 

Tailoring the Clause: 
In contracting, as in life, a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. Progressive clauses should be tailored to the specific needs of the contract and the industry involved. For example: 

  • Technology Agreements (SaaS, IaaS, Hardware, and Software Warranties etc.): 
    • Where the contract relates to very technical goods or services, including steps requiring technical experts to resolve issues related to performance or functionality initially can ensure they are addressed quickly and safely. 
    • Where these agreements require certain performance levels, the quick escalation of system failures, errors, breaches etc. allow technical leadership to identify recurring common problems and enable more comprehensive solutions to address those appropriately. 
  • Master Goods/ or Service Agreements (MGA, MGSA, MSA’s etc.): 
    • More complex agreements with multiple delivery lines and performance requirements for both parties may require more specific engagement points. In agreements like these, including a general progressive dispute resolution clause in the General Terms and then adding in and/ or specifying specific technical steps (and team member names, contact details etc.) within an applicable schedule will ensure that the overall agreement has a common dispute resolution approach, while also ensuring that teams dealing with one particular schedule only, have a clear path to easily follow day to day. 

Practical Tips

When Drafting Effective Progressive Clauses: 

  • Clarity is Key: Use clear and unambiguous language to define each stage, the responsibilities of each party, and the timeframes involved with as little ‘jargon’ or ‘legalese’ as possible. The overall goal of the ADR clause is to enable the contract lifecycle by making disputes easy to address quickly and appropriately. The language further supports this by ensuring every team member who may need to use this process can easily understand and act within it. 
  • Define Roles: 
    • Specify the level of personnel required at each stage to ensure appropriate engagement. 
    • Where there may be a delegation of authority that applies, use the common titles of the positions the necessary delegation is with. 
    • This will likely be a clause used by both operational and technical staff members so ensure every team member that may need to use this process can easily understand and act within it. 
  • Set Realistic Timelines: Balance the need for thorough discussion with the urgency of resolving the dispute. 
  • Include a “Safety Valve”: Consider including a provision that allows parties to bypass certain stages in exceptional (and defined) circumstances, such as when there is a risk of immediate harm or a material technical failure. 

When mediating or adjudicating disputes with progressive clauses: 

  • Follow the checklist 
    • For mediators and arbitrators, a progressive clause provides an initial roadmap for engaging with the parties around the dispute. From the clause, you know what steps each was required to be taken and what information the parties will likely have needed at those stages prior to moving to the next step. 
  • Streamlining the matters in disputes 
    • By initially confirming that each party followed the progressive process and confirming their understanding of the facts and outcome at the end of each step, each party can reflect on that step for themselves as well as the other party without additional probing questions from you. 
    • It may be possible to also confirm the commonly accepted ‘technical facts’. E.g. the jurisdiction, the technical specifications of a particular equipment piece etc. 
    • You also have the benefit of a clearer picture of what is in dispute, as well as where and how previous resolutions failed. 

Conclusion: 

Progressive dispute resolution clauses offer a practical and effective way to manage the inevitable disagreements within contracts. By building in a structured process for addressing disputes, these clauses encourage communication, maintain relationships, and often lead to more efficient and mutually beneficial results. For mediators and arbitrators, understanding the details of drafting and implementing these clauses is essential. A well-crafted progressive clause not only builds resilience into agreements but also provides a practical and constructive way to resolve conflicts, ultimately contributing to stronger and more sustainable business relationships. 

Sample Clause: 
Dispute Resolution:

Any dispute arising hereunder, including the validity of this agreement, shall first be resolved by taking the following steps, where a successive step is taken if the issue is not resolved at the preceding step: 1. by the technical and/ or contractual personnel for each Party, 2. by the technical and contractual managers for each Party, 3. by executive management of each Party, 4. by mediation, or 5. through binding arbitration and/ or the applicable court. 

Except as otherwise provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own legal costs and attorneys’ fees. 

This article shall survive the termination of this Agreement for any reason. 

Disclaimer: This article offers general commentary and suggestions for consideration by ADR practitioners. It is not intended as a substitute for professional legal advice, and practitioners are responsible for exercising their own professional judgment and seeking specific legal guidance when advising clients or drafting legal documents. 

Building Resilience into Agreements: The Power and Nuances of Progressive Dispute Resolution Read More

The Silent Killer: Why “Validity” Matters in Your ADR Clause

Last Updated:

A results-oriented Contract Management leader with 10+ years of experience across the full contract lifecycle—drafting, strategic management, and practical application—in sectors including mining, energy, finance, and technology. Joánri has handled agreements from daily operational needs to complex, multi-year master contracts exceeding a billion dollars. Now, she applies this expertise to guide individuals and businesses through contract disputes, optimization, and implementation.

In any contract lifecycle, disputes are inevitable. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clauses, promising cost-efficiency, confidentiality, and a solution outside the traditional courtroom, are often tucked away in the latter part of the contract or General Terms as a boilerplate clause meant to provide a framework for resolving those disagreements. 

But what happens when the foundation the ADR clause rests on – the contract’s validity – is called into question? This is where the often-overlooked word “validity,” or the phrase “and validity thereof,” becomes critically important.

Imagine a scenario where a disagreement arises, and one party claims the entire contract is invalid due to issues with its formation, perhaps alleging misrepresentation, or lack of capacity by a signatory, etc. If the ADR clause doesn’t explicitly address disputes concerning the validity of the contract itself, you could find yourself in a precarious situation as an arbitrator. 

Here’s why this seemingly small detail can have a significant impact: 

The Four Walls of the Contract: Contractual dispute resolution, especially arbitration, operates within the confines of the contract that created it. The arbitrator’s appointment, authority to adjudicate the dispute, have their award be enforceable within that contract, by that same token, is also typically derived from the contract between the parties. 

If the contract creating that process is then found to have been invalid, the basis for arbitration becomes equally invalid. 

Note that this will only be applicable where the contract is found to have never been valid – not where the contract was initially valid and then became, or is found to have become, invalid thereafter. 

The Arbitration Paradox: Consider the irony: a party arguing that the contract is invalid might also be required to participate in an arbitration process outlined within that very contract. Without a clear provision addressing validity, courts may struggle with how to proceed. Does the arbitrator have the power to decide on the validity of the contract itself? Or does that question need to be resolved in court first, potentially undermining the efficiency goals of ADR? 

The Risk of Parallel Proceedings: The absence of “validity” in the ADR clause can also lead to a messy situation where one party initiates arbitration while the other party files a court action challenging the contract’s validity. This can result in costly and time-consuming parallel proceedings as the court will need to consider its own jurisdiction as well before hearing the case, defeating the purpose of having an ADR clause in the first place. 

So what now? 

Protect the dispute resolution mechanism 

  • Write it in at the start

Ensure certainty and clarity by including the phrase “and validity thereof” in your ADR clause acts as a safeguard. 

By clarifying this seemingly minor detail while drafting you can save significant time, money, and headaches down the road, ensuring that your chosen path to dispute resolution remains effective and reliable. 

  • Amend the contract prior to arbitration to include it

You may be engaged and on review of the contract and an overview of the matters in dispute, it becomes clear that those matters include something that can invalidate the contract, propose that the parties amend the ADR clause to include necessary language to ensure the clause will survive to enable adjudication. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, putting the words “and validity thereof” in your ADR clause isn’t just legal jargon – it’s a practical step that makes good sense. By clearly stating that your chosen way to resolve disagreements also covers any arguments about whether the contract itself is valid, you can steer clear of confusing legal battles and the risk of ending up in both arbitration and court at the same time. This small addition makes sure your agreed-upon method for solving problems can actually do its job properly and efficiently, protecting the time and money you hoped to save in the first place. 

Sample Clause: 
Dispute Resolution: Any dispute, disagreement, or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the breach, termination, or validity thereof, shall be resolved by [Insert chosen ADR method, e.g., arbitration] in accordance with [Insert relevant rules, e.g., the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce]. The place of [ADR method] shall be [Insert location]. 

Disclaimer: This article offers general commentary and suggestions for consideration by ADR practitioners. It is not intended as a substitute for professional legal advice, and practitioners are responsible for exercising their own professional judgment and seeking specific legal guidance when advising clients or drafting legal documents. 

The Silent Killer: Why “Validity” Matters in Your ADR ClauseRead More

ADRIA Board Director Opportunity!

Last Updated:

Your Opportunity for Impact!

Looking to serve our membership in a way that advocates change and engages our community? We have initiated our annual Board Director recruitment process. If you are looking for an opportunity to guide strategic direction in ADR, start here – join our Board!

As a Director you would participate in monthly virtual Board meetings with additional in-person meetings 1-2 times per year. Additionally, you would be asked to serve on one of the two standing committees: Finance, Audit and Risk, or Governance and Human Resources. As well, there are several sector specific committees to engage your area of ADR expertise. We are a governance Board.

Directors are full members who bring a background in various sectors. If you are a lawyer,mediator, arbitrator, business owner, accountant, or you have a background in diversity, equity and inclusion, social work, and or lobbying, share your skills with us and share in our vision: Leading Dispute Resolution in Alberta.

We have a few Director vacancies, expressions of interest are invited to be submitted to Membership@adralberta.com and will be welcome until March 10, 2024. Virtual interviews will be held March 17 – 21, 2024 and Directors will complete the election process and participate in our AGM, scheduled for May 30, 2024.

ADRIA is an organization dedicated to promoting, delivering and improving justice and access to justice in Alberta. We have long valued and drawn strength from our diversity as leaders in this field. We strive to respect individuals based on their integrity, knowing we have much work to do. ADRIA is committed to speaking out against racism and discrimination in all its forms and to ensuring our commitment to diversity and inclusion is reflected in our training, policies, and operations. We are dedicated to working with ADRIC and our fellow regional affiliates, our members, clients, colleagues, and all others in the pursuit of justice, diversity and reconciliation.

ADRIA Board Director Opportunity!Read More

ADRIC-RICS Canada Adjudicator Training Program

Last Updated:

<< back to Job Board

ADRIC-RICS Canada Adjudicator Training Program

Location

Type of Position

Application Deadline

Module 1: Introduction to Adjudication Program

Please email your interest for courses to Fordam.wara@adric.ca

A one day overview of how adjudication works and how to get the best out of it

Price: $299 + taxes

Module 2: Adjudication Advocate Training Program

Please email your interest for courses to Fordam.wara@adric.ca

This course will be presented online.

Registered participants will be sent an email with the Microsoft Team’s link the Monday before the course. Please be sure to check your Spam as the emails are often pushed there as “unrecognized email”.

Advising and representing parties in adjudications
This intense two-day program is designed for prospective adjudication party representatives, and advocates, and legal and built environment professionals for whom a more detailed understanding of construction adjudication will be beneficial for their work in advising clients.

Modules 2 & 3 are required training for anyone interested in applying to become a member of an adjudication roster.

Price: $995 + taxes

* If you are taking Module 2 and 3 you can take both for a reduced price of $3,500.

Module 3

Please email your interest for courses to Fordam.wara@adric.ca

This course will be presented online.
Limited spaces – Register early.

Registered participants will be sent an email with the Microsoft Team’s link the Monday before the course. Please be sure to check your Spam as the emails are often pushed there as “unrecognized email”.

PREREQUISITES:

  • ADRIC-RICS Module 1: Introduction to Adjudication (recommended)
  • ADRIC-RICS Module 2: Adjudication Advocate Training (mandatory)

A comprehensive 28 hour training program, following the ADRIC-RICS Adjudication Advocate course.

This course is broken into units and is delivered over four weeks to allow time for study and preparation between sessions. Please note candidates should factor in that there will be additional study and assessment preparation to be undertaken during this period.

This module covers  the remaining knowledge and competencies you need to practice as a construction adjudicator, with specific focus on applicable common and statutory law, adjudication practice, managing the adjudication process and decision writing.

Assessment:  This module is subject to formal assessment in the form of a written examination, an online assessment and a practical adjudication decision writing exercise.

Please email your interest for courses to Fordam.wara@adric.ca

Price: $2595 + taxes

Modules 2 & 3 are required training for anyone interested in applying to become a member of an adjudication roster.

* If you are taking Module 2 and 3 you can take both for a reduced price of $3,500.

Note: The training you will receive has been designed by RICS/ADRIC based upon the combined experience of these organizations respecting construction adjudication.  ADRIC/RICS are confident that, following the successful completion of the three module program, a candidate will be well trained in the basic principles of construction adjudication and eligible to apply for a Q.Adj (Const)) designation from ADRIC (subject to completing the ADRIC designation process).

A candidate must note, however, that this training does not guarantee an appointment to the roster of any nominating authority in any jurisdiction.  Appointment to a Canadian federal or provincial roster of adjudicators remains subject to the relevant legislative frameworks many of which are not yet enacted in whole or in part.  Moreover, it is the nominating authority in each jurisdiction which is vested, under the legislation, with the power to appoint adjudicators in those jurisdictions. For example, ADRIC’s Quebec Affiliate, L’Institut de mediation et d’arbitrage du Quebec, is the current nominating authority in that province. Similarly, ADRIC’s Saskatchewan Affiliate, ADRSK, shares responsibilities with the Saskatchewan Construction Association for the operation of the Saskatchewan Construction Dispute Resolution Office (SCDRO), the nominating authority in that province. ADRIC/RICS and ADRIC’S Alberta Affiliate, ADRIA (operating in partnership as “ARCANA(AB)”) has recently been appointed as a Nominating Authority in Alberta. Further information can be found at:  https://adric.ca/construction-adjudication.

Candidates for any roster established by ADRIC/RICS will be required to complete an application and undertake an ADRIC/RICS interview process (for which there will be an additional fee) and complete the RICS Professional Ethics module.  Ongoing continuing professional development (CPD) is also required to maintain the Q.Adj (Const) designation and roster qualification.

ADRIC-RICS Canada Adjudicator Training ProgramRead More

ADRIC-RICS Canada Adjudicator Training

Last Updated:

ADRIC and its partner, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), have developed a Model Framework for Construction Adjudication across Canada to set the standard for the management and administration of this new field of ADR in Canada.

The ADRIC-RICS Model Framework provides comprehensive guidance for all jurisdictions in Canada to achieve an ADR system that will be consistent across the country, based on the 95% success achieved since the first introduction of interim adjudication in the UK 25 years ago.

The training you will receive has been designed by RICS/ADRIC based upon the combined experience of these organizations respecting construction adjudication.  ADRIC/RICS are confident that, following the successful completion of the three module program, a candidate will be well trained in the basic principles of construction adjudication and eligible to apply for a Q.Adj (Const)) designation from ADRIC (subject to completing the ADRIC designation process).

Further information can be found at:  https://adric.ca/construction-adjudication.

ADRIC-RICS Canada Adjudicator TrainingRead More

$5-million expansion to family resolution services

Last Updated:

<< back to Job Board

$5-million expansion to family resolution services

Location

Type of Position

Application Deadline

For the first time in more than 20 years, Alberta is increasing the income threshold for family mediation services to help more Albertans resolve family disputes. 

The family mediation program allows low-income parents who are separating or divorcing to resolve parenting issues and create parenting plans outside of the courts. To keep up with the rising cost of living and make the program more accessible to Albertans, the eligibility income threshold for the program increased to $60,000 from $40,000 on March 1.

The family mediation program is one of many family resolution services Albertans can access. Budget 2023 is providing $5 million to enhance family resolution services, such as pre-court assessment, mediation, family court counsellors and parenting intervention programs. These services make a difference to many facing the emotional stress of family legal matters and help mitigate justice system backlogs by allowing families to resolve disputes outside the courts.

“Adjusting the eligibility income threshold for the family mediation program for the first time in 20 years will reduce costs to taxpayers, reduce court backlogs, and most importantly, allow more Albertans to access a program that reduces the stress of resolving family disputes.”Tyler Shandro, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

“In times of family breakdown, going to court can be an incredibly difficult and stressful experience for everyone involved. Providing more support to help Alberta families resolve disputes fairly and equitably outside court will have significant positive impacts on the outcomes of these cases. Additional funding for family mediation services means that more Albertans will be able to amicably resolve their family issues with confidence and dignity.”John Panusa, KC, president and CEO, Legal Aid Alberta

“Accessible family justice is essential to the well-being of Alberta’s families, particularly for the children of families that are restructuring and facing new challenges. Reducing the financial and emotional cost of separation and divorce with mediation and other less adversarial options will ensure families can still thrive and preserve essential relationships. ADRIA fully supports dispute resolution options such as mediation that encourage families to resolve their differences outside of the courtroom, and to successfully manage their co-parenting responsibilities. The decision to raise the eligibility income threshold for Alberta’s family mediation program represents significant support for Alberta families and children, and for alternative dispute resolution as the preferred alternative to court.” Paul Conway, executive director, Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Alberta

“The Alberta Family Mediation Society is very pleased to hear that Alberta Justice is increasing the income threshold for their family mediation services. This increase will benefit many Alberta families experiencing family conflict. Family mediation can reduce the financial and emotional costs of litigating as well as shorten the time frame required to reach a resolution. It allows the participants to engage in a collaborative problem-solving process with an experienced family mediator who is neutral and can assist the parties in navigating their particular conflict.”Sharon J. Crooks K.C., board chair, Alberta Family Mediation Society

“Parents going through separation and divorce often don’t know how to start or where to turn for help. Family mediators help parents work together to reorganize their family in the best way possible, creating two homes from one where children can feel secure and supported in both. In mediation, parents focus on their children while making the many changes and decisions needed to set up their new co-parenting relationship. This increase in funding will open the door to many more parents looking to move through one of life’s most stressful events collaboratively and respectfully, minimizing the impacts on their families, their health and their financial resources.”Judith Lake, past president, Alberta Chapter, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

“When turmoil is going on for the family, everyone is experiencing the breakdown of relationships within it. Family mediation creates a safe space to work through the issues in a way that creates a better outcome. Mediation focuses on the best interests of the children and safety plans can be put in place. Court backlogs draw out this process and children’s voices are never heard.”Barb Barclay, southern regional manager, Native Counselling Services of Alberta

Budget 2023 secures Alberta’s future by transforming the health-care system to meet people’s needs, supporting Albertans with the high cost of living, keeping our communities safe and driving the economy with more jobs, quality education and continued diversification.

Quick facts

  • Parenting disputes resolved by mediation result in significant cost savings. The average cost to staff a courtroom for a parenting dispute is $2,731 compared to $641 for family mediation services, resulting in a savings of $1,730 per dispute.
  • From 2015-2020, the average number of mediations completed per year was 1,073.
  • Current wait times for mediation are one to three weeks, depending on the location.
  • More than 85 per cent of mediation sessions lead to a resolution and more than 90 per cent of Albertans report being satisfied with the service.
  • The family mediation program is available across the province.
  • This change is supported by Provincial Court of Alberta and Court of King’s Bench judiciary.

Related information

$5-million expansion to family resolution servicesRead More

ADRIA is now delivering Prompt Payment Construction Adjudication Services!

Last Updated:

Construction Adjudication services in Alberta are now regulated under the Province’s Prompt Payment Construction Lien Act (PPCLA).  Effective August 28th, 2022, all construction payment disputes are subject to the regulated adjudication process, and all construction adjudicators offering services under the PPCLA must be certified by a Nominating Authority (NA) appointed by the Minister Service Alberta.  Visit  https://adralberta.com/prompt-payment/  for more details and a link to the legislation.

 Effective March 7th, 2023, ADRIA and its partners (collectively operating as ARCANA (AB)) have been granted ongoing Ministerial authority to provide NA services in Alberta for the provision of construction adjudication services.  In fact, ARCANA (AB) is the only NA with delegated authority in the province, and expects to be formally appointed in the weeks ahead.  ARCANA (AB) represents a collaborative partnership between ADRIA, ADR Canada (ADRIC) and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), and over a dozen roster applicants completed 40+ hours of construction adjudication training in 2022.  Another training session is planned for this Spring – see the details below. 

ADRIA will soon post supporting website materials and a roster of qualified adjudicators, and has already begun accepting contract payment disputes and appointing adjudicators.  ARCANA (AB) is working closely with the construction industry representatives to ensure that its NA services meet the sector’s needs, and will form a standing Advisory Council to enhance services over time.  Visit the ADRIA website for updates and roster opportunities in this sector, and to register for the April 20th Prompt Payment Construction Adjudication Symposium in Calgary or live stream.

<strong>ADRIA is now delivering Prompt Payment Construction Adjudication Services!</strong>Read More