Law Dispute SummaryEssay title: Law Dispute SummaryDispute Summary PaperJR NoiaBUS 415Mr. Anthony Ellis Esq.January 9, 2006Introduction“Several forms of nonjudicial dispute resolution have developed in response to the expense and difficulty of bringing a lawsuit. These methods, collectively called alternative dispute resolution, are being used more and more often to resolve commercial disputes”(Cheeseman,2004, p. 3). ADR can be a smart alternative to litigation in that it saves on court costs and time by allowing mediators, arbitrators or other personnel to come to a compromise and satisfy both parties involved. One party was definitely not satisfied with the outcome chosen by the other in this upcoming dispute. The Canadian government was being cited for abuses against the native Indian peoples of Ottawa in their residential schools. A hard line review of the government’s ADR process was given by The Assembly of First Nations, a Native Indian organization. This paper will discuss and analyze the ADR that the Canadian government used and summarize what is right or wrong with it.
Description of CaseAs mentioned above, this case deals with the reported abuses levied against the Native Indian tribes in their residential schools. The article unfortunately does not give a time frame of when these abuses occurred but obviously admitted to them. It was at this time, to avoid a lengthy court process that the Canadian government decided to implement an Alternative Dispute Resolution process to try and settle the case. The Assembly of First Nations released a lengthy and critical report against this ADR saying, for all intents and purposes, that this was not a satisfactory ruling. What was interesting to note that “more that half of the members of the expert panel that prepared it are non-Native people who hold law degrees” (Windspeaker, 2004). This would lead much more credibility to the complaints of the Assembly.
The Truth
While the law does not provide a timeframe for the release of information and documentation on abuses in residential schools, it would seem a good place to talk about the ways in which these abuses occurred.
[Footnote 2/3] The issue in this case is whether residential schools are properly registered. First of all, there is no record of any such registration with the province. If such registration was required by law, it would mean that there were many, many violations for any of those residents to address. There was no lack of such violations though as this section of this report provides for details of a few.
The Assembly does not know what happened to those people who were found in custody and without their constitutional rights being protected, or if the violations are still being investigated. If it was a matter of accountability, then there is no need to re-examine whether this is the status of that individual.
[Footnote 2/4] Moreover, there is no record of any arrests made, which was the purpose of the Home Survey. (A report under the heading “Offences committed under the Law on Residential Schools” states it was used to report: ) The most recent report to the Association of Residential Schools on their history of mismanagement indicates some additional claims made by some parents. These are serious violations of constitutional rights and are not being investigated to investigate the other problems as such.
The question here is what is the nature of the violations committed on a particular aboriginal school board. I have discussed what to do in detail below. But it is an important question to be answered.
[Footnote 2/5] The First Nations have been sued for abuse under Section 11.1, including in Canada, as described above. (This section of the report indicates that the lawsuit has been ongoing. [Note: The First Nations believe that they should have been entitled to a judicial review in the Court of Appeal. (A. J. G. Brison, Aboriginal Law Review Project, January, 2003).] Therefore, this question of liability could not have been raised without a judicial review. Thus, these lawsuits do not merit a judicial review.
[Footnote 2/6] However, the fact that such an incident is happening may be relevant to the issue. An Ontario court was very explicit in its conclusion of this matter in its decision to dismiss lawsuits for non-compliance with the law. They stated:
The law is based upon an understanding of the need for fairness in the assessment of child welfare, on a comprehensive assessment of the state in which the parents are concerned, and under a number of special circumstances, particularly if the parents are indigenous (see R. W. Shaw, Public Education Law: The Public Lands, 1998).
In summary, the case presents an abuse of procedural powers and privilege when it came to the release of information requested by the Assembly. It highlights one of the best examples of the inadequacy of the police response to abuse from the age of 14.
[Footnote 2/7] This type of investigation is a serious matter which cannot be lightly criticized. (A. J. G. Brisson, Human Rights, Law and Society, 2007)
[Footnote 2/8] Given the amount of information available by the government, it would seem that they could simply take these actions,
The Truth
While the law does not provide a timeframe for the release of information and documentation on abuses in residential schools, it would seem a good place to talk about the ways in which these abuses occurred.
[Footnote 2/3] The issue in this case is whether residential schools are properly registered. First of all, there is no record of any such registration with the province. If such registration was required by law, it would mean that there were many, many violations for any of those residents to address. There was no lack of such violations though as this section of this report provides for details of a few.
The Assembly does not know what happened to those people who were found in custody and without their constitutional rights being protected, or if the violations are still being investigated. If it was a matter of accountability, then there is no need to re-examine whether this is the status of that individual.
[Footnote 2/4] Moreover, there is no record of any arrests made, which was the purpose of the Home Survey. (A report under the heading “Offences committed under the Law on Residential Schools” states it was used to report: ) The most recent report to the Association of Residential Schools on their history of mismanagement indicates some additional claims made by some parents. These are serious violations of constitutional rights and are not being investigated to investigate the other problems as such.
The question here is what is the nature of the violations committed on a particular aboriginal school board. I have discussed what to do in detail below. But it is an important question to be answered.
[Footnote 2/5] The First Nations have been sued for abuse under Section 11.1, including in Canada, as described above. (This section of the report indicates that the lawsuit has been ongoing. [Note: The First Nations believe that they should have been entitled to a judicial review in the Court of Appeal. (A. J. G. Brison, Aboriginal Law Review Project, January, 2003).] Therefore, this question of liability could not have been raised without a judicial review. Thus, these lawsuits do not merit a judicial review.
[Footnote 2/6] However, the fact that such an incident is happening may be relevant to the issue. An Ontario court was very explicit in its conclusion of this matter in its decision to dismiss lawsuits for non-compliance with the law. They stated:
The law is based upon an understanding of the need for fairness in the assessment of child welfare, on a comprehensive assessment of the state in which the parents are concerned, and under a number of special circumstances, particularly if the parents are indigenous (see R. W. Shaw, Public Education Law: The Public Lands, 1998).
In summary, the case presents an abuse of procedural powers and privilege when it came to the release of information requested by the Assembly. It highlights one of the best examples of the inadequacy of the police response to abuse from the age of 14.
[Footnote 2/7] This type of investigation is a serious matter which cannot be lightly criticized. (A. J. G. Brisson, Human Rights, Law and Society, 2007)
[Footnote 2/8] Given the amount of information available by the government, it would seem that they could simply take these actions,
“There are two categories of harm in the federal government’s residential school alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process: Category A and Category B” (Windspeaker, 2004). Basically the first category is for survivors that claimed hospitalization due to physical and sexual abuses. The second category involves lesser abuses and caps out at 1,500 minimum and 3,500 maximum damages for these.
Some of the complaints stem from sexual abuses, loss of home, loss of culture and neglect. As the report goes on to say, “the process takes too long. The model does not take into account the healing needs of survivors, their families and their communities. The model does not take gender differences into account, neither for gender-specific injuries inflicted nor for the gender-specific consequences of the injuries” (Windspeaker, 2004).
The Canadian government was being really being short sighted in how much trauma these people went through and according to many, tried to short change the compensation