Blog

Have you ever wondered about Family Law Mediation as an option for you for your separation? Is it even an option when it seems that things are so difficult on every level? The short answer is yes. All issues, including parenting plans, child support, spousal support, asset division and more, can be worked out through mediation.

Mediation is a voluntary process where the parties work together with a neutral  family law mediator or family dispute resolution professional who will help them create a long lasting, customized agreement based on each parties needs, wishes and interests, giving the family the ability to create the outcome that works best for them.

It is private, affordable, and an efficient use of family resources as it gives the family control over the outcome. Mediation can work for all families, even where there are high conflict dynamics and in cases where there is little or no communication. The mediator will adapt their process and create a safe environment whereby mediation can proceed with the necessary safe guards in place.

Mediation can be done with the parties only or with lawyers present. Parties are always encouraged to get independent legal advice during the mediation process and when signing a final agreement. It can also be set up remotely or in person.

The process starts with a separate intake meeting with each party and the signing of an Agreement to Mediate that sets out the process and terms for mediation. Parties can exchange mediation briefs or summaries of the issues to be resolved in advance of the sessions. The mediation sessions are then set up either with all parties present in the same room or, if that is too challenging, then with the parties can be in separate rooms in a ”shuttle mediation”.

Mediation requires parties to provide full disclosure of information and a commitment to act in good faith. It is a settlement based process that encourages open, creative, and flexible conversations leading to a comprehensive agreement that resolves all issues thereby allowing parties to move forward with their lives in a positive manner.

For more information about mediation, contact Shelina Sayani.

On May 1, 2021, government legislation that dramatically reduces the rights of all British Columbians came into effect. Now if you are injured in a car crash through no fault of your own, in almost all cases you will have no right to sue the person that hurt you to get full compensation for your losses. Instead, using obscure criteria published in its Regulations, ICBC adjusters will decide how much compensation you are entitled to receive. Good luck challenging ICBC’s decision if you don’t agree. Until now you had the right to go to an impartial judge who would award damages to you based on your unique situation. Now it’s a one size fits all approach. The decision will be made by an adjuster and challenges will difficult as with no underlying legal action lawyers will not usually be involved to advocate on your behalf. Left unchallenged, adjuster’s decisions are likely to be more and more autocratic. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Western democracies have generally thought that access to the court system is a fundamental right of every citizen. Justice is only achieved where an independent judiciary free of government interference determines citizens’ rights. Ironically, in other areas of the law better access to the courts is a matter of significant concern. Personal injury has long been an exception. Because lawyers will act on contingency, where they only get paid if the claim succeeds, access to court is a much smaller problem than almost any other area of law. Now the government has decreed that such access somehow “costs too much” so your compensation will now be restricted and your rights determined by an adjuster who works for ICBC instead of by a judge. A giant step backwards for justice.

The government has said it will save $1 billion or more a year with these changes. Where will those savings come from? Most will be realized from paying injured people less, in some cases, much less. Insurance is supposed to spread the risk of loss from the person who suffers the loss to a wider group of insureds. By spreading the risk, everyone pays a little so no individual suffers a catastrophic loss. You and thousands like you pay house insurance so that if your house burns down you won’t lose everything. You will get the funds you need to rebuild. This is why you buy insurance. You pay for peace of mind. The government has reversed that. They are telling you if you get injured you won’t be able to be fully compensated. Your house will never be rebuilt. The billion in savings to the government will be borne by the injured person. How is this fair?

The government has argued that more care is available to injured people. While it’s true that coverage for medical treatment has increased from $150,000 to a maximum of $7.5 million, just because more coverage is available doesn’t mean it will be used (or even needed). ICBC will still only approve that treatment which is required to treat your injuries. In the vast majority of cases that will be a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. There was always coverage in place to provide this much treatment. Besides, there is nothing inherently contradictory about offering more coverage for care, while still allowing people to sue in court if they need to challenge what ICBC agrees to cover. The money paid for treatment is factored into the court award so that no one gets compensated twice for the same treatment costs; that could be true whether the coverage is $150,000 or $7.5 million. What does not follow is that because people have more theoretical coverage for care, they should no longer be able to challenge ICBC’s decisions on other losses like pain and suffering or income loss in court.

Because one size does not fit all, these changes will affect some more than most. I anticipate that some of the most disadvantaged groups will be the most adversely affected. Those without regular employment such as young people, mothers absent from the workforce while they raise their children, people in the gig economy, or the disabled will only be eligible for benefits based on income that may underrepresent their true long term earning capacity. The law has always recognized that due to their injuries people may not be able to maintain full time employment, get promoted or work until their intended retirement. Compensation for those types of very real losses is now a thing of the past.

Did you know a spouse or child can challenge an unfair will?

If someone dies leaving a will that disinherits that person’s spouse or child, then those individuals may be able to challenge the will in court. It’s called a wills variation lawsuit. The child or spouse shows that the will didn’t leave enough to that person, and asks the court to change the will accordingly.

The court has broad power in deciding whether and how to vary a will, and considers numerous factors. Those factors include things such as: whether the child or spouse reasonably expected to receive something under the will; whether the will-maker had reasons for leaving someone out of the will; and whether neglect or estrangement played a role in the family relationship.

While the court must respect the wishes of the person who left the will, it must also consider what is fair in all of the circumstances. It’s easy to see how this kind of litigation can get contentious. For example, If the will-maker left an explanation for the disinheritance, the child or spouse should be prepared to show that those reasons were false or unpersuasive.

A spouse or child of a will-maker who thinks that the will was unfair should seek legal advice – and quickly. There are short deadlines for filing and serving a wills variation lawsuit so contact Ambleside Law today for confidential advice.