You’re facing a battle over an alleged wrongful dismissal or a grievance, and you are probably not looking forward to the process before a judge, adjudicator or arbitrator that may leave both parties feeling unsatisfied in the end.

You know that when you face that independent decision maker, they could decide either way, no guarantee, no matter how strong you think your case is.

The hearing room is a place of adversarial conflict. It is both parties' role to make the other side look bad, for the jurist to decide in their favour. Mediation is non-adversarial, with the goal of helping both parties get along beyond the conclusion of mediation.

In the hearing room, the decision and outcome belong solely to the decision maker. In mediation, you craft the decision and decide how to proceed based on your interests. Nobody forces you to agree to something you do not wish to agree to.

When using a hearing, you do not control when the process reaches a conclusion. You may have the dispute hanging over you for years while you wait for various delays. In mediation, we usually book two months ahead.

In a hearing, legal counsel usually counts on a day of preparation for each scheduled day of the hearing, so for a four-day hearing, legal counsel will be engaged for eight days. The costs and time spent are significantly lower in mediation; a mediation generally does not exceed a single day.

Mediation is a confidential process, and all parties in attendance must sign an agreement that includes confidentiality provisions. In mediation, neither side has to worry about airing their dirty laundry in public. In a hearing, the decision-maker issues a decision that becomes a public record. Anyone with internet access can learn about both sides' potential wrongdoing.

Even if mediation is unsuccessful, the option to proceed to a hearing remains. Mediation is without prejudice, and no information from mediation may be shared in a subsequent hearing.