No abstract

The “matter of religious arbitration in . . . Ontario” to which Margaret Atwood and nine others are referring is a vocal, polarized debate – the “[S]haria debate.”2 It has largely been framed by two questions. Should Ontario “[p]rohibit the use of religion in the arbitration of family law disputes”3 to avoid “the ghettoization of members of religious communities as well as human-rights abuses?”4 Or would such a prohibition do a “great disservice to a number of religious groups in Ontario, and nothing to safeguard the interests of Muslim women?”5 Several fundamental rights and interests are engaged by this debate, including religious freedom, gender equality, the rights of children, national and cultural identity, freedom from hatred, the role of the state in family law, and others.

This overview report-based on data analysis primarily conducted by Ab Currie, as supported by David Northrup and the balance of our research team-summarizes some of the basic findings of the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice's 2014 "Everyday Legal Problems and the Cost of Justice in Canada" survey. This overview report builds on, and in some cases updates and clarifies, some of the preliminary findings released in our initial reporting on this survey (see e.g.

The traditional narrative of the legal profession has run its course. Lawyers are looking for ethically sensitive ways to practice law that “assume greater responsibility for the welfare of parties other than clients” and that increasingly amount “to a plus for this society and for the world of our children.” Lawyers are also seeking ways to practice law that allow them to get home at night and on weekends, see their families, work full or part-time, practice in diverse and “alternative” settings, and generally pursue a meaningful career in the law rather than necessarily a total life in the law. Similarly, law students are hoping not to be asked to make a “pact with the Devil” as the cost of becoming a lawyer, and are instead looking to find areas in the law that fit with their personal, political, and economic preferences. An increasing number of legal academics are teaching, researching, and writing about progressive changes to the way we view the role and purpose of lawyering. Law faculties are actively reforming their programs and creating centres and initiatives designed to make space for innovative ethics offerings and public interest programs. Law societies and other regulatory bodies are slowly chipping away at some of the time-honoured shields of ethically suspect client behaviour, while at the same time facing demands for increased accountability. The bench and the bar are taking an active interest in addressing a perceived growing lack of professionalism within the practice. The public is increasingly skeptical of the distinction that continues to be drawn between legal ethics and “ordinary standards of moral conduct.” Finally, clients are not only expecting lawyers to actively canvass methods of alternative dispute resolution—the alternative to the adversarial and costly litigation process—but they are also demanding evidence of general sustainable professional practices from their legal counsel.

This article examines current dispute resolution leaching and research programs in the context of improving access to justice through recent civil justice reform initiatives. Animated by extensive domestic and international literature, online and survey-based research, the article explores the landscape of alternative dispute resolution (primarily at law schools), comments on the need for continued thinking and reform and acts as a leading resource to assist in the ongoing, collaborative development of dispute resolution initiatives in education in Canada and abroad.