Law Dispute Summary

Dispute Summary Paper

JR Noia

BUS 415

Mr. Anthony Ellis Esq.

January 9, 2006

Introduction

“Several forms of nonjudicial dispute resolution have developed in response to the expense and difficulty of bringing a lawsuit. These methods, collectively called alternative dispute resolution, are being used more and more often to resolve commercial disputes”(Cheeseman,2004, p. 3). ADR can be a smart alternative to litigation in that it saves on court costs and time by allowing mediators, arbitrators or other personnel to come to a compromise and satisfy both parties involved. One party was definitely not satisfied with the outcome chosen by the other in this upcoming dispute. The Canadian government was being cited for abuses against the native Indian peoples of Ottawa in their residential schools. A hard line review of the government’s ADR process was given by The Assembly of First Nations, a Native Indian organization. This paper will discuss and analyze the ADR that the Canadian government used and summarize what is right or wrong with it.

Description of Case

As mentioned above, this case deals with the reported abuses levied against the Native Indian tribes in their residential schools. The article unfortunately does not give a time frame of when these abuses occurred but obviously admitted to them. It was at this time, to avoid a lengthy court process that the Canadian government decided to implement an Alternative Dispute Resolution process to try and settle the case. The Assembly of First Nations released a lengthy and critical report against this ADR saying, for all intents and purposes, that this was not a satisfactory ruling. What was interesting to note that “more that half of the members of the expert panel that prepared it are non-Native people who hold law degrees” (Windspeaker, 2004). This would lead much more credibility to the complaints of the Assembly.

“There are two categories of harm in the federal government’s residential school alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process: Category A and Category B” (Windspeaker, 2004). Basically the first category is for survivors that claimed hospitalization due to physical and sexual abuses. The second category involves lesser abuses and caps out at 1,500 minimum and 3,500 maximum damages for these.

Some of the complaints stem from sexual abuses, loss of home, loss of culture and neglect. As the report goes on to say, “the process takes too long. The model does not take into account the healing needs of survivors, their families and their communities. The model does not take gender differences into account, neither for gender-specific injuries inflicted nor for the gender-specific consequences of the injuries” (Windspeaker, 2004).

The Canadian government was being really being short sighted in how much trauma these people went through and according to many, tried to short change the compensation