e-Court vs. ADR

(1) e-Court offers arbitration and is meant to function where mediation is not anymore possible. ADR offers a scala of related services without a clear dominant focus on any one particular area.

(2) Arbitration fees of ADR are substantial higher and not fixed beforehand. Lawyers fees are neither included nor mentioned. e-Court displays clearly "upfront" all fixed fees in a sample-table. Therefore with e-Court all parties know exact costs beforehand. ADR does not clearly display all costs beforehand.

(3) e-Court offers a fixed time table - no longer than 6 weeks ( with appeal hearing additional 4 weeks ). ADR states "arguably" 3 months duration but contents on its website are not clear on exact total process duration. In addition no appeal is possible with ADR.

(4) e-Court relies on the use of Internet and makes the dossiers accessible to the parties at any time during the proceedings. Input and further uploads to the dossiers are entirely via Internet. Furthermore it is emphasized that e-Court eliminates all delays and inefficiencies in its proceedings. Its costs comes further down through automatic alerts & information via e-mail. e-Court's motto: "The time an experienced expert arbitrator should spend on your case, is pure thinking, not paperwork" . This saves costs. ADR on the otherhand appears not to utilize Internet to the same degree as e-Court as a basis of its total approach.

(5) e-Court occupies modest but highly functional office premises. These days conducting affairs utilizing where possible high technologies, such as the internet is "inn". Hence e-Court does not occupy fancy expensive office overhead which costs in the end need to be born by the client. ADR on the other hand operates with imposing office overhead, which partially explains the much higher total costs to their clients.

(6) Contesting parties using e-Court may include an oral hearing during the standard proceedings, if they so wish but this is not mandatory. It is obvious that time and additional costs for all concerned are saved when there is no formal oral hearing. ADR ordinarily insist on an oral hearing to take place within two months of the appointment of the arbitrator.

(7) e-Court allows for an appeal process ( and under arbitration by a different arbitrator ). With ADR the arbitration award is final and not open to further appeal.

(8) e-Court allows hearings to take place across the nation. ADR uses its facilities in Toronto.

(9) e-Court offers registered professionals membership in e-Court with entitlement to many benefits. At all times e-Court provides full transparency of affairs to its members and non-members. In contrast ADR does not offer membership and neither it is clear whether ADR offers non stakeholders full transparency.

(10) e-Court operates with its own e-Court internet based software in Canada, the USA ,the UK, and India. This will benefit dispute settlement within NAFTA and with parties in the UK. ADR on the other hand states it operates internationally out of Toronto but does mention its services offer Internet interface. Because e-Court has inhouse internet programming knowledge & related equipment it can be extremely effective, regardless of distance.

c-Court operates and maintains a large number of proprietary related domains. Similarly it operates social networking blogs via Twitter, Facebook and Google Buzz and LinkedIn.

(11) What is in the name ? e-Court is registered and operates with a distinctive name. Its charter is one which is not self-serving but aims to provide competent, affordable, speedy and fully transparent justice for everyone. ADR's name ( ADR chambers ) is not self evident what it stands for. With extensive media attention e-Court may well become Canada's leading & known private litigation entity offering speedy cost-effective adversarial dispute resolution.

(12) e-Court by virtue of its innovative reliance on "complete" Internet security uses an extensive set of security measures among which All data traffic between your PC and the servers of e-Court is encrypted using SSL encryption technology (2048 bit RSA encryption). This means that all information on the Internet (such as passwords and financial data) are protected by "intercepting the traffic on the Internet." It is not evident that ADR has invested enhanced internet security in its operations. Their websites do not display the adress bar with SSL security like e-court.

(13) When e-Court hearings are being held and only with agreement by all involved parties, a video conference is set up using Skype between all offices wherever they are in the world with all video calls being free. With ADR the video conference costs are particularly heavy. The website states : "The cost for eVideo Mediation within North America is $250 per day per remote user (in addition to the mediator's regular fee for the day). (If everyone is in the same room except for one person, that is one remote user.) The cost for international users will vary depending on the location of each user." Furthermore, it is not clear if ADR allows video conferencing during arbitration hearings.

(14) e-Court incorporates in its costs a "refundable" escrow for purposes to increase effective enforcement of its decision. ADR stops any involvement after its verdict is rendered. Whilst binding ( as with a verdict by e-Court ) ADR appears not offer help to enforce its decision.