This is a posting continuing my thoughts from each day in my trial. To get caught up see previous posts.
As I mentioned in my post Trial - Day 2 experience of yesterday, we were scheduled for a mid-trial settlement conference first thing this morning.
So, a new justice came in to give us their opinion on the trial so far. The mid-trial judge does not get anything but opening statements, some evidence brief, a summary of issues for trial and about 30 minutes to get familiar with the case. The mid-trial judge does not get any insight from the presiding judge. The mid-trial is prompted by the trial judge when the trial justice believes sufficient evidence has been heard to begin determining an outcome. The idea is to have a mid-trial judge give their independent opinion on how the trial will be decided in order to provoke settlement (saving time, money, anxiety).
We listed to a very learned justice go through the matters, cite some case law and precedent and reasoning for their opinion. I can't go into case details here (it's my motion to change spousal support due to income change). However, I admit my delight that the justice followed most of my pleadings in her opinion (although not 100%). After questions by myself and the ex, we were adjourned to see if we could formulate a settlement. Now, my ex and I haven't been alone in a room for years since we split...and it was unfortunately nasty.
I won't get into negotiating details, however we went at settlement offers for hours, including getting back in front of the mid-trial judge for clarification. Another two hours after negotiation we came to a virtual settlement, but my ex wants the night to think about it before signing it. We each traded off a number of things.
The most interesting thing was the mid-trial judge's comments on how the court system works and what can be expected. The justice spoke about how Canada is a common law jurisdiction, which means judges make decisions based on decisions that came before (precedent) and interpretation of law. It means judgments are subject to human opinion and difference and, although there is consistency and consensus, the exact results of a trial can be a crap shoot. The justice then said if either of us were seeking perfection in the courts judgments then we should check that ideal and wait for god in heaven. She also stated it was important to discover in ourselves if we wanted to nail the other person to the cross - that is a desire that will equally be unfulfilled by the courts and should be put aside in order to come to settlement.
Wise words.
We'll see how it goes tomorrow. I want settlement and have offered a lot in order to get on with life. If we don't settle, it's back to trial.
FG
As I mentioned in my post Trial - Day 2 experience of yesterday, we were scheduled for a mid-trial settlement conference first thing this morning.
So, a new justice came in to give us their opinion on the trial so far. The mid-trial judge does not get anything but opening statements, some evidence brief, a summary of issues for trial and about 30 minutes to get familiar with the case. The mid-trial judge does not get any insight from the presiding judge. The mid-trial is prompted by the trial judge when the trial justice believes sufficient evidence has been heard to begin determining an outcome. The idea is to have a mid-trial judge give their independent opinion on how the trial will be decided in order to provoke settlement (saving time, money, anxiety).
We listed to a very learned justice go through the matters, cite some case law and precedent and reasoning for their opinion. I can't go into case details here (it's my motion to change spousal support due to income change). However, I admit my delight that the justice followed most of my pleadings in her opinion (although not 100%). After questions by myself and the ex, we were adjourned to see if we could formulate a settlement. Now, my ex and I haven't been alone in a room for years since we split...and it was unfortunately nasty.
I won't get into negotiating details, however we went at settlement offers for hours, including getting back in front of the mid-trial judge for clarification. Another two hours after negotiation we came to a virtual settlement, but my ex wants the night to think about it before signing it. We each traded off a number of things.
The most interesting thing was the mid-trial judge's comments on how the court system works and what can be expected. The justice spoke about how Canada is a common law jurisdiction, which means judges make decisions based on decisions that came before (precedent) and interpretation of law. It means judgments are subject to human opinion and difference and, although there is consistency and consensus, the exact results of a trial can be a crap shoot. The justice then said if either of us were seeking perfection in the courts judgments then we should check that ideal and wait for god in heaven. She also stated it was important to discover in ourselves if we wanted to nail the other person to the cross - that is a desire that will equally be unfulfilled by the courts and should be put aside in order to come to settlement.
Wise words.
We'll see how it goes tomorrow. I want settlement and have offered a lot in order to get on with life. If we don't settle, it's back to trial.
FG
Comment