Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Around The World
- Chapter 3 The History of JDR in Canada
- Chapter 4 JDR's Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
- Chapter 5 ADR v. JDR
- Chapter 6 JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
- Chapter 7 Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
- Chapter 8 Justice and Fairness in JDR: The Motor Vehicle Accident with Pedestrian Case
- Chapter 9 Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament and Attitude in JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
- Chapter 10 Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
- Chapter 11 Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
- Chapter 12 Juggling Complexity in JDR: The Falling Rocks Case
- Chapter 13 Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
- Chapter 14 JDR and the Role of Precedent: The Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 15 The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
- Chapter 16 The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC) JDR Cases
- Chapter 17 Specialized JDRs (SPECs): A Look at Three Cases and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Chapter 18 How to Prepare for and What to do During a JDR: The Power Pole Case
- Chapter 19 The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
- Epilogue: The Future of JDR
- Bibliography
- Appendix
- Teaching Guide
- Case Studies
- Index
5 - The Negligent Land Transfer Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2024
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Chapter 1 Introduction
- Chapter 2 Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) Around The World
- Chapter 3 The History of JDR in Canada
- Chapter 4 JDR's Response to the Weaknesses of Litigation
- Chapter 5 ADR v. JDR
- Chapter 6 JDR Produces Satisfactory Results: The Divorce Case
- Chapter 7 Advantages and Disadvantages of JDR
- Chapter 8 Justice and Fairness in JDR: The Motor Vehicle Accident with Pedestrian Case
- Chapter 9 Types of Judges: Skill, Temperament and Attitude in JDR Temperament in an Estate Dispute Case
- Chapter 10 Confidentiality and Privacy in JDR
- Chapter 11 Which Cases are Unsuitable for JDR?
- Chapter 12 Juggling Complexity in JDR: The Falling Rocks Case
- Chapter 13 Divergent Interests of Adversarial Lawyers and Their Clients
- Chapter 14 JDR and the Role of Precedent: The Medical Malpractice Case
- Chapter 15 The Importance of a Robust JDR Intake System
- Chapter 16 The Chief Justices and How to Triage Special (SPEC) JDR Cases
- Chapter 17 Specialized JDRs (SPECs): A Look at Three Cases and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Chapter 18 How to Prepare for and What to do During a JDR: The Power Pole Case
- Chapter 19 The New World of Online Dispute Resolution (OJDR)
- Epilogue: The Future of JDR
- Bibliography
- Appendix
- Teaching Guide
- Case Studies
- Index
Summary
Facts
This case focuses on a dispute between Betty and Tom Walker and their three children, Lila, Will, and Ellis. Betty and Tom owned several tracts of land in Alberta, including three parcels of farmland where they lived. Their son Will had also been made the registered owner of these three parcels. Lila was made an owner of only one parcel, the “family home parcel,” where their home was located.
In 2006, Ellis spoke with his family about being added to the title of the three parcels of land. His parents, sister, and brother would all need to execute documents adding him to the title of each parcel. Despite a verbal agreement that he would become a co-owner of the land, his brother Will refused to execute the documents. Seeing conflict brewing, Tom Walker hired a lawyer, Laura Simon, to represent him in adding his son to the title for each of the three parcels. Betty, Will, and Lila retained their own lawyer, Terry Harris.
Simon and Harris negotiated a settlement with the family in early 2007 that allowed Will, Betty, and Lila to each retain their quarter interest in the family home parcel. Tom would share his quarter interest in the family home parcel as joint tenants with his son Ellis; when Tom died Ellis would inherit the entire quarter interest. Lila was added as a quarter owner to parcel two, and Tom agreed again to share his quarter interest in parcel two with Ellis also as joint tenants. Ellis was not added to the title for parcel three.
Simon sent the agreement to Harris for his clients to sign, and then Harris sent the document back to Simon for her clients’ signatures. Tom Walker signed the documents but Ellis Walker did not. About two weeks later, Simon sent revised documents to Harris for their signatures. The new agreement modified Ellis's quarter share: instead of holding the interest with his father as joint tenants, they held the interest as tenants in common, each holding one-eighth interest in the entire property. At Tom's death, Ellis would no longer have had any claim to his father's one-eighth interest in the property. Ellis was not informed of this change and it is unclear why it occurred.
Simon was responsible for submitting the executed documents to the title registry.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Judicial Dispute ResolutionNew Roles for Judges in Ensuring Justice, pp. 233 - 240Publisher: Anthem PressPrint publication year: 2023