ADJUDICATION V/S ADR

Adjudication v/s Alternative Dispute Resolution



Adjudication v/s Alternative Dispute Resolution

Introduction

The movement of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has been popular across the Canadian justice system as a mechanism in searching for alternatives to the traditional litigation process in recent years. Part of the explanation for the development of variations in dispute resolution mechanisms lies in the difficulties people experienced in the use of the available public litigation system provided through the courts of this country. One of the most attractive features of ADR is that lawyers and their clients have available to them the freedom to tailor the particular process in resolving disputes (Sourdin, Tania. 2002).

Rather than being forced into the traditional litigation “one-size-fits-all structure” (Cundiff, 1993), lawyers and their clients can now choose the dispute resolution process that best suits their needs. It gives the disputants control and a chance to participate in the dispute resolution process. Alternative dispute resolution processes also provide disputants with a private environment within which to resolve their problems. This is a particularly positive feature when disputes deal with family matters, or private business practices. Finally, ADR processes encourage the disputants to voluntarily invest time and money in working together to amicably settle their differences. Thus the parties are more likely to abide by those agreements since they took parts in formulating the solution. This does not mean that litigation is no longer a viable option. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with the litigation process, it may not be satisfactory to use traditional litigation to resolve all disputes. The main goal of the ADR movement is to provide more effective dispute resolution. Generally, these alternatives to court trials benefit the litigants who save both money and time. It also lifts the heavy burden off the courts. The most popular alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the Canadian justice system are mediation and judicial dispute resolution. Many provinces have incorporated these techniques into their court system (Ware, Stephen J. 2001). This paper discusses to what extent Adjudication is more appropriate than Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Family Dispute.

Discussion

Procedures for settling disputes by means other than litigation; e.g., by arbitration, mediation, or minitrials. Such procedures, which are usually less costly and more expeditious than litigation, are increasingly being used in commercial and labor disputes, divorce actions, in resolving motor vehicle and medical malpractice tort claims, and in other disputes that would likely otherwise involve court litigation (Ross, Norman A. 1997).

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many people became increasingly concerned that the traditional method of resolving legal disputes in the United States, through conventional litigation, had become too expensive, too slow, and too cumbersome for many civil lawsuits (cases between private parties). This concern led to the growing use of ways other than litigation to resolve disputes. These other methods are commonly known collectively as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (Roberts, S, 1998).

As of the early 2000s, ADR techniques were being used more and more, as parties and lawyers and courts realized that these ...