Compare All

Dispute Resolutions in Family Law

There are several dispute resolution options available to help resolve family law matters in Ontario. The suitability of any option depends on the level of conflict and complexity of the matter, and the selection process is a strategic decision that can significantly affect cost, timing, enforceability, and overall exposure. The comparison summary below is intended to provide some clarity on how these options are generally used in the context of resolving family law matters in Ontario.

How the law views dispute resolutions in Ontario

Ontario courts encourage parties to resolve family law disputes in a manner that is proportionate, efficient, and consistent with statutory requirements and the best interests of any children involved. Courts recognize and support a range of dispute resolution options, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, collaborative, and litigation. While parties are often encouraged to consider alternatives to court, there is no requirement to pursue or remain in a process that is ineffective, unfair, or inappropriate. Regardless of the process selected, outcomes remain subject to legal standards and, where applicable, court oversight.

Comparison summary

Negotiation tends to function best where parties are represented, disclosure is reliable, and there is a genuine ability to engage in focused, good-faith discussion. It is most workable in matters with manageable conflict and clearly defined issues, where flexibility and proportionality can be maintained without the need for external enforcement. Negotiation becomes a poor fit where non-disclosure persists, power imbalance is significant, or conflict is so entrenched that meaningful participation is unlikely. In higher-conflict or complex matters, relying on negotiation without sufficient structure can extend uncertainty and increase exposure rather than move resolution forward.

Mediation can be useful where participation is voluntary, disclosure is transparent, and communication, while strained, remains functional. It may assist in resolving discrete issues or narrowing disputes when conflict is present but contained and appropriate safeguards are in place. It may also be well suited to allowing the parties to reach final resolution within a short period of time.  Mediation is often ill-suited to matters dominated by power imbalance, intimidation, or credibility disputes. Mediation alone does not provide mechanisms to compel disclosure, address urgency, or impose binding outcomes.

Arbitration is well suited to situations where parties require a binding determination, the issues are clearly defined, and disclosure is sufficiently complete to support a final decision. It is frequently used in disputes where timeliness, subject-matter expertise, and procedural control are important. Arbitration carries increased risk where facts are incomplete, circumstances are evolving, or binding outcomes may be reached without an adequate evidentiary foundation. It may also be an unsuitable choice where urgent temporary relief is needed, there is necessary involvement of third parties or protection against power imbalance is required.

Collaborative can function effectively where parties are motivated to resolve issues cooperatively, are prepared to commit to full and timely disclosure, and can sustain respectful engagement despite disagreement. It may be appropriate in complex matters where conflict exists but remains contained and where parties value process control over adjudication. Collaborative is generally a poor match for matters involving entrenched conflict, non-disclosure, safety concerns, or rigid positional behaviour. Because participation agreements restrict access to litigation during the process, an ill-suited collaborative approach can delay necessary court intervention and increase cost.

Litigation is often necessary where conflict is entrenched, disclosure is resisted, credibility is disputed, or urgent and enforceable relief is required. In high-conflict or complex matters, litigation can provide the structure, judicial authority, and procedural safeguards needed to manage risk effectively. Litigation may be disproportionate where issues are narrow, cooperation remains possible, and risks can be addressed through less formal processes. When pursued prematurely or without strategic purpose, it can increase cost and intensify conflict without improving outcomes.

Legal Considerations

Process selection influences how information is exchanged, how quickly issues are addressed, and how outcomes are enforced. Factors such as disclosure reliability, power imbalance, urgency, and the need for binding or interim relief play a central role. Selecting an option that does not align with the realities of the matter can increase delay, cost, and exposure rather than reduce it.

Our Role as Family Lawyers

Our role is to provide legal advice and representation that is proportionate to the level of conflict and complexity in the overall family law matter, including an assessment of the available dispute resolution options for the situation. Guided by our law firm’s five-step approach, we formulate and implement a legal strategy that remains responsive to changing circumstances, ensuring the matter continues to progress efficiently toward resolution.