Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution: A New Option For Resolving Family Matters In Our Court System
By Lauryn Bikos, Law Student | January 9, 2025
with the oversight of Timothy Matthews
There is now a new streamlined alternative approach for reaching a final resolution in some family law cases that are in court in Northwestern Ontario, including Thunder Bay. It’s called Binding Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) and can potentially be used in family law cases involving issues like support, parenting time or property issues that are in dispute.
If you’re asking, “What is a JDR, and why have I never heard of it before?” don’t worry! I was asking the same questions when I was asked to observe one during my student placement at Henderson Family Law. Essentially, a Binding JDR hearing is where parties consent to a process where the judge will first attempt to assist the parties in reaching a settlement, and then if a settlement of all issues cannot be reached, the same judge will make a final decision regarding any unresolved issues. As the name suggests, the judge’s decision is binding, meaning all parties must abide by it. Think of the process as half “settlement conference” and half “trial.”
Before heading to the courthouse, I tried to learn every possible detail about the process. When does the process happen? Can anyone opt into this? How does it work? Did I even really understand what a JDR is?
I first reviewed the comprehensive guide to Binding JDR on the Superior Court of Justice’s website. This guide covers what a Binding JDR is, tells parties how to enter into one, and even suggests what it may look like in Court. The guide clearly notes that a Binding JDR is a voluntary process, meaning that all parties to the proceeding must consent to it. Further, the guide describes how a Binding JDR is only appropriate in cases where the only witnesses required are the parties, although the judge can also consider reports provided by third parties, such as business or real estate valuators, or reports from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. There is no formal right of cross-examination as part of the process, meaning it is typically not appropriate where there are significant credibility issues about the evidence. Finally, it’s not appropriate in cases where all necessary financial documents have not been exchanged before the hearing, or in cases that involve one or more vulnerable parties (such as in matter involving intimate partner violence).
A JDR may, however, be a good fit for cases where the parties have not been able to come to an agreement on certain matters, but want to avoid the significant expense and time of going to a conventional trial in Court.
I also read some JDR decisions to understand how the process interacts with “real life” cases. In the Ontario case of M.D. v C.S., Justice L. Madsen provides an endorsement for the JDR process to assist other families who may be considering it. She includes commentary on the general process as well as the importance of this new type of proceeding. Justice S. K. Stothart provides similar commentary on the JDR process in the more recent case of Little v Little.
What stood out the most to me while learning about this process was its simplicity – especially when compared to an actual trial in Court. Essentially, after a request for a JDR hearing is approved and all counsel file the proper documentation, the judge conducting the JDR will begin with a settlement discussion phase. Ideally, parties will resolve issues during this time; however, if there are still outstanding issues, the judge moves to an adjudication phase, where they will decide on any unresolved issues.
After reading through this information and understanding the legal purpose of a JDR, I turned to the client’s file to understand the personal side. How would a JDR benefit our client? Is it the best option for them to reach a resolution? In short, I found myself answering “yes” to this; like many other family disputes, the parties were interested in resolving matters as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, which is the primary goal of a JDR.
On the day of the hearing, I was ready. I knew why a JDR was in the parties’ best interests, I understood what each party was seeking, and I was looking forward to experiencing a new legal proceeding. The only remaining question was how the process would look in real life.
In her opening statement, the judge noted that this proceeding would be a learning experience for her, all counsel, and the parties. She clearly stated that the purpose of this process was to be flexible and considerate of this family’s specific needs. She maintained this narrative throughout the proceeding, as she would direct counsel on what each phase should include.
The first half of the process was very informal; counsel provided the Court with their client’s position, and the judge freely asked questions of either party or lawyer when necessary. The judge then gave her thoughts on settlement and how she considered each aspect of the case. With these comments in mind, the parties and their respective counsel had one last opportunity for settlement before the judge made a decision on each of the remaining, unresolved issues.
While the settlement discussions phase was quite interesting, I found the adjudication process even more so. For the portion of the matter that wasn’t resolved by the parties, the judge immediately delivered her binding decision orally to the parties and explained how it differed from a typical written trial decision. She cited case law provided by counsel, the relevant legislation, and the legal principles to show the parties how she arrived at her decision. She also reviewed all topics touched upon in Court and took the time to recognize the positions of both parties.
The judge ended the Binding JDR by thanking all who were involved. She explained that, while it may have felt long and intense, the parties saved significant time and expense by consenting to this process.
As an observer, I found this Binding JDR surprisingly open, direct, and fair. While it may still be new, there appear to be many benefits to a Binding JDR. The underpinning principles are simplicity and efficiency, often two significant criticisms of family law proceedings in our current court system.
If you’re interested in learning more about Binding JDR or if this approach may be appropriate for your matter, reach out to Henderson Family Law today.
DISCLAIMER:
This content is provided as a general informational source by Henderson Family Law, and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, or establish a lawyer-client relationship. Every situation is complex and fact-specific, and appropriate advice will vary accordingly. Do not rely on this information for legal decision-making under any circumstances. Please consult with us and obtain proper advice and strategy concerning the specifics of your particular situation.