Page 33 - CCCA64_2009

CCCA_V3No4_ADR-FIN.qxd:CCCA_V1No1_DriversSeat-FIN.qxd 11/24/09 11:51 AM Page 33 Feature n order to survive in the current economic climate, businesses must become more efficient in every aspect of operations. I IPublic and private stakeholders demand that businesses make strategic decisions under tight deadlines and with limited informa- tion. This is the new business reality, and it has a direct impact on dispute resolution. Making the business case for ADR by James Dunbar It means there is a corresponding expectation that business Illustration Otto Steininger, 3 in a Box disputes will be resolved at the earliest opportunity on the best possible terms. And to satisfy that expectation, busi- nesses must, where appropriate, abandon the traditional model of dispute resolution and embrace the alternatives. Let’s review when that is possible and what that entails. The Traditional Model: Litigation There is no denying it: Some disputes can only be resolved through litigation. The best examples include disputes that require an extraordinary remedy only a court can award, such as an injunction, or that involve regulated or highly specialized areas of law such as tax or intellectual property. In some cases, businesses prefer a binding determination by the court on key issues such as the interpretation and application of legislation and regu- lations. And litigation is the default method of dispute resolution if ADR is unavailable or unsuccessful. However, litigation is remarkably ill-suited to resolving HIVER 2009 CCCA Canadian Corporate Counsel Association 33