DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE: THE COURTS AND ADR, or, THE "MULTI-DOOR" APPROACH

DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE: THE COURTS AND ADR, or, THE "MULTI-DOOR" APPROACH

Civil justice is a foundational institution in our society. We believe that the State has an obligation to make available to its members the means by which their disputes may be resolved, peacefully, through the medium of independent, objective and fair third party intervention.
This involves more, in our times, than simply the presence of courts as we have traditionally known them, albeit, the adjudicative role of an independent judiciary will remain a central and indispensable aspect of any civil justice system. Experience in our own and most other jurisdictions show us that the vast majority of all cases settle before trial. We need to focus our attention on the process for disposition of this great majority of cases, as well as continuing to concentrate on those that do go to trial.
In a broader sense, then, "the Court" should become a "dispute resolution centre" -- a place where people go to have their differences resolved in a fashion which is most appropriate to their particular situation. This may involve resort to one or another of the wide panoply of "alternative dispute resolution" ("ADR") techniques that are available or it may involve resort to the traditional litigation path towards court adjudication. In either case the State, in our opinion, has an obligation to ensure that these options are available to the members of the public. This is what is meant by the "multi-door" concept of dispute resolution. There are a variety of "doors" through which disputants may go, in order to find the best method of resolving their differences.
ADR is not a panacea, but among its strengths is the veritable smorgasbord of techniques which it makes available to enable the parties to create procedures and solutions that are tailor-made for their circumstances. The public should have access, within the rubric of its civil justice system, to these alternative mechanisms for finding a resolution to their own disputes themselves, either on their own or with the assistance of a third party.
At the same time, it remains essential -- indeed, fundamental -- that the civil justice system provide an impartial and fair tribunal to determine the parties' disputes in a binding fashion, when they cannot do so themselves. This tribunal we know traditionally as a "Court".

Draiman