Law Times

Page 12 September 8, 2015 • Law timeS www.lawtimesnews.com Family law evolves to offer a range of services BY MICHAEL McKIERNAN For Law Times hen Gerald Ye- mensky got his call to the bar nearly three decades ago, people with family law problems had essentially two options. "Work it out yourselves or go to court. There were no other alter- natives," says Yemensky. After 30 years, he says family law in Ontario has evolved dis- tinctly from other forms of civil law with the courts placing an emphasis on settlement facilita- tion at every turn. Many family law boutiques have followed suit by putting alternative methods of dispute resolution at the heart of their offering to the public. "There are dozens of options," says Yemensky, a lawyer at Ot- tawa family law firm Campbell Clark Yemensky. Between them, the firm's five lawyers offer cli- ents a range of alternative dispute resolution services, including col- laborative family law, mediation, and arbitration as well as unbun- dled legal services and litigation support for self-represented par- ties. "I prefer to call it appropriate dispute resolution. We want to find a resolution using a method that suits a particular family's needs, starting with the least in- trusive method," says Yemensky. that the action does not have a real and substantial connection with Ontario." In a way, Sachs' dissent is instructive to prospective class action plaintiffs on how to structure their claims to get it into Ontario, says Lockwood. If plaintiffs want to make sure they've got a better shot at pro- ceeding in Ontario in a case involving a foreign company, they may want to limit it to the Canadian element, such as the auditor in this matter, he adds. The second issue in Excali- bur Special Opportunities LP was whether a class action is the preferable method of resolving the matter. The majority upheld the motion judge's finding that a joinder would be a preferable procedure. Again, Sachs dis- agreed. "I first note that there was no evidence before the motion judge that joinder was avail- able as an alternative proce- dure. In particular, there was no evidence that the other class members would be pre- pared to assume the burdens, risks and responsibilities of commencing their own claim, that they would be able to or would want to retain the same counsel, or that the defendant would retain the same counsel to defend these theoretical ac- tions," she wrote. "If the actions were success- fully pursued individually by the foreign Class members in jurisdictions other than On- tario, they would then be put to the further expense and delay of bringing a proceeding to en- force a foreign judgment against the defendant in Ontario," she added. "Since the defendant has not acknowledged its willingness to attorn to any jurisdiction, any proceeding to enforce a foreign judgment could be met by fur- ther jurisdictional challenges." Jay Strosberg, a partner at Sutts Strosberg LLP, says Sachs got it right in her dissent. "Canada is an exporting country," he says. "When residents of Ontario and people in other countries use goods and services pro- duced in Canada by Canadian companies with Canadian as- sets, they should be able to have access to the Canadian courts to litigate any disputes. "It doesn't matter whether the goods and services are auto parts or auditing services. . . . In this case, there is no doubt that this small group of investors relied upon the skill and judg- ment of the auditors, who are based in Ontario. "In these circumstances, the investors should be entitled to litigate this case where their au- ditors do business." LT Childview_LT_Nov4_13.indd 1 13-10-28 4:47 PM Untitled-1 1 2015-09-02 9:52 AM W Jurisdiction debated Continued from page 11 'In this case, there is no doubt that this small group of investors relied upon the skill and judgment of the auditors, who are based in Ontario,' says Jay Strosberg. See Alternatives, page 13 BRIEF: FAMILY LAW BOUTIQUES

• Cover