Murray Miskin has been actively involved in arbitration as a lawyer and trainer since the 1980s and has taught arbitration courses since 1985. He continues to be the primary arbitration instructor in Ontario with more courses to be offered in 2012. Murray first acted as an arbitrator in 1987 when selected by two of his students who were experienced arbitrators to chair a three member tribunal for a commercial lease renewal arbitration. Since then Murray was involved in a number of construction arbitrations, employment and other commercial arbitrations, and also environmental arbitrations. When the new Condominium Act for Ontario came into effect in 2001 bringing mandatory mediation and arbitration of all condominium disputes Murray became extensively involved in condominium arbitration. He has arbitrated a great number of condominium disputes where he has applied his own personal experience as a condominium resident and as the first President of a large new Toronto condominium’s Board of Directors. The Insurance Act has been amended to expand the use of private arbitration for insurance claims and disputes. Murray is now, as a neutral, applying his 30 years of personal injury insurance law practice experience to insurance law where he can work more freely as an arbitrator now that he is no longer a Plaintiff’s lawyer. This shift from representing individuals with claims is tied in with his involvement as Vice President of Arbitration in a new national ADR training and services company beginning operations sometime in 2012.
Murray Harrison Miskin – Curriculum Vitae:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alternative Dispute Resolution known as A.D.R. is a process of settling or deciding disputes outside of the traditional courtroom where a decision is made publicly by a judge and/ or a jury. The most common forms of ADR are Mediation and Arbitration. There are other types of ADR and some forms which combine them such as Med Arb which combines mediation with arbitration. Read our post on ADR Choices to learn about more dispute resolution options.
A mediator works to help bring the parties to their own agreement. The mediator helps the parties communicate and, during the mediation, is usually the one who delivers and discusses offers and counter-offers to and from each party. Usually mediators avoid giving advice or making recommendations, but instead try to help each party see the other side’s point of view and the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case. A mediator considers what a reasonable compromise solution is for every dispute. A mediator gets a sense of how far each party appears to be willing to go and when that point is reached in negotiations plays a vital role in helping parties consider factors necessary to settle the case or decide to reject a final offer. Sometimes offers are kept open after the mediation date and further mediation efforts can also take place to continue the process. Mediation is most effective when it is interest based rather than rights based. That means people can come to decide to do what is in their best interest and compromise rather than keep a dispute unresolved to their detriment because of principles of who is right and who is wrong. In an interest based mediation people will compromise to end a dispute sooner and have the best result rather than fail to agree because each side thinks the law and/or truth and justice is with them. Mediation is a “win win” process where settlements are made that all parties are content to live with instead of the all or nothing result from a trial judgment or arbitrator’s award.
An Arbitrator is a private judge who decides the issues in dispute based on evidence and the law as it applies to the dispute. The parties are able to choose their own judge with the qualifications they believe are needed to decide the dispute. It is rights based in the same way that court is where usually one side wins and the other loses. This ADR process may or may not require a formal hearing and evidence to be called through witnesses. Arbitration is a process with flexible rules where the parties can agree on an efficient way to get evidence to the arbitrator to form the basis for a decision resolving the dispute. They can save on the costs of a hearing by proceeding to present evidence in a different way. This can be very informal, efficient and different than court proceedings. When arbitration is used without planning the process for the particular dispute, it can be more costly and lose much of its advantage over court. Arbitration is a type of A.D.R. that is used when settlement can not be achieved and someone is needed to make a decision. An Arbitrator is like an Umpire in baseball who decides issues when the parties are unable to agree. Parties may be forced to go to arbitration by an existing contract or law or they may choose to go to arbitration rather than court and make an arbitration agreement. Within arbitration there are opportunities for negotiation, mediation and settlement. People need to be very careful when using an arbitrator to mediate a dispute if that arbitrator may end up having to decide based only on the evidence if there is no settlement. The arbitrator must be careful in these situations to avoid being forced to disqualify themselves if there is no settlement. The arbitrator may learn things in discussions off the record that make it impossible to fairly make a decision based on the evidence presented. In that situation the arbitrator may have to resign and a new arbitrator would be selected with added expense and delay.
We believe that most disputes can be resolved by agreement with the help of an independent facilitator who mediates between the parties or otherwise assists. It is safer when the Arbitrator does not act as Mediator. When you can not settle it is often preferable to have your dispute decided by a qualified and independent arbitrator rather than going to court. Arbitration is a more private process which can also be quicker than court with less chance for appeal after the decision is made. The parties can limit or eliminate the right of appeal from an arbitrator but they can not take away the right of a losing party to have a court review a decision based on lack of fairness in the process. An expert arbitrator with qualifications in a field relevant to the issues of the case is better equipped to decide a technical dispute than a judge.
For disputes between people and companies in different countries International Arbitration is generally better than court due to distrust of foreign courts (or distrust of one’s own country’s courts) and the better ability to enforce international arbitration awards under international treaties and agreements. International mediation is less common due to the difficulty of arranging it between parties who are far apart and tend to stop communication where there is a serious dispute.
There are many ADR service providers around the world. Murray Miskin offers mediation, arbitration and other A.D.R. services in Canada and internationally. Murray Miskin is well known in Canada as an arbitrator, trainer of arbitrators since 1985,and as a mediator. Murray has conducted a wide range of commercial arbitrations. Murray has been appointed arbitrator by Canadian and U.S. courts. Most of Murray’s mediation work relates to personal injury, condominium, construction cases, environmental issues and a variety of insurance claims where he has expertise from over 30 years of experience as an insurance and personal injury lawyer. Visit our website page with Murray’s C.V. for further details of qualifications and experience. Email miskinlaw@yahoo.com to inquire about our services. Check at http://adrweb.ca to see an availability schedule and for more information on Murray and other ADR professionals.
For information on Murray Miskin’s ADR services in the Toronto Canada area visit our website: http://adr.tc
For information on Murray Miskin’s international ADR services visit our website: http://adrworks.us
This is the special page for students who took the Fall 2011 Arbitration course which has ended. It has been updated after each class with a summary of what was covered in the class. You may still comment or post questions here. This page will be available until the end of the year 2011 for your use and for our discussion. The class contact list and receipts were mailed to students on December 7th. Course completion certificates were couriered to Murray Miskin to sign and arrived and were sent out BY MAIL December 14th. MHM December 14, 2011
Thursday September 8th. First class was introductory to topics including qualification as an arbitrator. It was decided that the weekend class will proceed on Saturday October 22. We began to look at Ontario’s arbitration act and discussed Section 35 about mediation and section 3 covering opting out of provisions of the act and referred to each of those sections where it is listed that you can not opt out. Most importantly you can opt out against the prohibition of the arbitrator from mediating and you can opt out of the right of appeal. You can not opt out of the Section 46 right to apply to court to set aside an award but you can opt out of the limited right of appeal given under Section 45.
Tuesday September 13th. In this class we discussed Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protection it gives to witnesses from self-incrimination. This relates to Section 21 of the Arbitration Act which brings into arbitration the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA) which were discussed and affect evidence at arbitration. We discussed offers to settle in Court under Rule 49 and in arbitration under Section 54 (5). We further discussed combining mediation and arbitration which effectively requires an opting out of Section 35 and Section 13 (1) 1 of the Arbitration Act. A new precedent agreement will be brought to the class on September 20th. There was a handout of Sections 127 to 130 of the Courts of Justice Act dealing with interest which are incorporated into the Arbitration Act by Section 57. Section 127 to 130 will be discussed in detail at a later class. We also discussed assessing an arbitrator’s account under Section 56 of the Arbitration Act which refers to the Solicitors Act as it is a similar process as a client challenging their lawyer’s bill. Section 13 of the Arbitration Act and the challenge of the arbitrator up to the court level was also discussed. The set up of courts in Ontario was discussed particularly in reference to arbitration where there can be a number of applications made to judge’s of the Superior Court of Justice. Procedures in a court action from the beginning to the trial stage were discussed and contrasted to steps in arbitration which were discussed with reference to Section 25 of the Arbitration Act related to Statements (in court pleadings) and the discovery process which is optional in arbitration and formalized in court.
At the September 15 class we discussed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its application to arbitration. We then discussed family arbitration and how it came to be regulated through amendments to the Arbitration Act when efforts were made to set up an arbitration process for religious Muslims applying Sharia laws in arbitration. We then discussed the role of the courts in Arbitration as seen through sections 4,6,7,8 and 10 of the Arbitration Act. Section 8 was discussed with reference to Section 18 as there are overlapping powers of the court and the arbitrator. We also discussed Section 9 of the Arbitration Act which says that there is one arbitrator in an Ontario arbitration unless the parties specify otherwise. This was contrasted to Article 10 of the Model Law on International Arbitration (made law in Ontario by the International Commercial Arbitration Act) where the default number of arbitrators is three. Section 10 (4) of the Arbitration Act where it is stated strangely that the chair of an arbitral tribunal is elected from among the arbitrators (rather than automatically the third arbitrator normally appointed most independently of the parties). In the next class we will continue on that point noting its importance because Section 34 gives tie breaking powers to the chair and Section 20 (2) allows questions of procedure to be delegated to the chair.
The September 22 class began with a review of a Mediation agreement which was just used in the course of a Condominium arbitration being conducted by Murray Miskin. The agreement contained strong language where the parties acknowledged the risks of the process and specifically opted out of the provisions of Sections 13 (1) 1 and 35 of the Arbitration Act. Section 13 of the Act was discussed as one where the courts may be involved in arbitration on a challenge of an arbitrator for reasonable apprehension of bias or lacking qualifications to conduct the arbitration. There was further discussion of the problems involved and imbalance created if the parties follow Section 10 (4) of the Arbitration Act with reference to Sections 34 and 20 (2). Court involvement in the arbitration process was discussed with reference to Arbitration Act sections which are: 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 39, 40, 45, 46 and 47. The next class will continue covering court involvement beginning with discussion of Section 48.
The September 27 class continued covering sections of the Arbitration Act dealing with court involvement in arbitration as follows: 48, 49, 50, 52, 53 (6) and 56. We then dealt with sections covering procedures in arbitration and the powers of the arbitrator as follows: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 (refer to S. 52 (1) for limitation periods which are time limits for commencing arbitration which relate to when an arbitration is commenced), 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39. Sections listed up to this point should be known for their contents (not section numbers) for purposes of the test to take place on Tuesday October 6 at the beginning of the class. The test is likely to begin at 6:45 PM and general questions or questions on specific sections can be asked and answered between 6:30 and 6:45. You may NOT (this means shall not) refer to any notes or other materials including the Arbitration Act during the test. Those who finish the test ahead of other are asked to hand in their paper and leave the room while others are completing the test. If anyone is not going to be at class or expects to arrive after 6:45 PM please let me know in advance.
The October 4 class is to include the test followed by review of the following sections (not on the test except in relation to court involvement in arbitration or as previously discussed) which also relate to procedures under the act and the powers of the arbitrator: 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57. At the October 4 class we will also discuss in detail how interest is awarded and calculated for arbitration with reference to Sections 127 to 130 of the Courts of Justice Act. These sections were discussed after the test along with the provisions for interest as they apply to arbitration. From the 13 students all present the following were the number of students with each of the following marks out of a maximum of 20:
2 – 20
2- 19
2- 18
2- 17
3- 15
1- 14
1- 11.5
If your score was less than 15 I suggest you review the act more.
Following the October 4 class we next met on October 13, 18 and 20 and discussed costs in arbitration, arbitration agreements, the role of experts in arbitration, pre-arbitration meetings, production and discovery in arbitration and procedures at a hearing. On the morning of October 22 there was lengthy discussion of marketing services and running an arbitration practice.
Here is the link to the Law Times arbitration article: http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Focus-On/Arbitration-becomes-more-like-litigation
The course continued and the Mock Arbitration took place on October 22, 2011. The decision was given by the Arbitral Tribunal at the Thursday October 27 class. By a unanimous decision Flinders was successful in its claim. Notes taken of the actual hearing were posted but have now been removed. If you email me a request I will directly send class members a copy of the notes
Here is more about the Flinders Case!
At the October 27 class we discussed interest and costs in relation to the Flinders decision and then discussed Condominium, Sports and Construction Arbitration. The class then broke into two groups to negotiate an arbitration agreement in the Fawlty v Blackadder case. The negotiation was adjourned at the end of class. The last class included discussion of the text Russell on Arbitration and review of its content on who may be an arbitrator. We discussed the decision making process in arbitration and how to make an award including the requirements of an arbitration award. The Finhert condo arbitration decision was discussed as an example. A handout was distributed of quotes related to making a decision which included Lord Mansfield’s quote discussed in a previous class. Labour arbitration and international arbitration were discussed as was community arbitration (and getting started as an arbitrator by doing community work). We covered issues related to sensitivity to various ethnic groups and cultures during the arbitration process. The AAA video of problems in an arbitration was not available but some of its contents were discussed. Students were encouraged the join the Ontario Bar Association’s ADR Section and also to join the ADR Institute of Ontario. A class photo was taken with Ayoub Ali’s camera and hopefully it will be distributed.
Congratulations to all for successfully completing the course. Receipts should have arrived by now along with a list of everyone’s contact information. Certificates from the ADR Institute were sent out by mail on December 14, 2011.




