Collaborative Family Law (CFL) refers to a process for resolving family law disputes, including disagreements pertaining to divorce, separation, spousal support, the division of property, and other family law matters. CFL is only a viable option if both parties agree to participate in good faith.
Unlike litigation, CFL is a more cooperative and non-adversarial approach whereby the parties, their lawyers, and often third-party specialists (i.e. financial specialists, parenting coaches, experienced mediators, etc.) work together to form solutions to the parties’ unresolved disputes. CFL is meant to encourage collaboration, open communication, transparency and a constructive approach to problem-solving without the threat of litigation.
The objective of CFL is to allow couples to reach a mutually acceptable agreement, hopefully regarding all issues between them, without expending the costs, time, and energy of litigating their disputes in court. It is also a way to empower the parties to craft their own solutions instead of leaving disputes to be determined by a judge, who may very well make a decision that both parties may not like.
CFL may be a viable option for couples who do not want their disputes to become public, for cultural or other reasons, and recognize the significance of maintaining a positive relationship with the other spouse – particularly if children are involved. This can help preserve or create a basis for effective co-parenting and future interactions between the parties.
If the parties agree to resolve their disputes through CFL, the terms are incorporated into a final and binding agreement (i.e. a separation agreement).
If you wish to go through the CFL process to resolve any family law dispute, it is important to retain a lawyer to represent your interests and to ensure that the overarching objectives of cooperation, transparency, and participation in good faith are maintained throughout the process. Contact Kamalie Law for a free consultation.
A breach of contract happens when one party under the contract fails to fulfill their obligations – either partially, or fully. This means that someone (a person or a corporation) either did something that they were not supposed to do or did not do something that they were supposed to do. Their conduct has shown that they are not honouring the contract.
While this is a broad definition, there are multiple types of breach of contract and multiple ways that a breach of contract can be resolved. While we may naturally think of one party simply failing to pay or someone failing to deliver goods or services, there are multiple different parts of a contract that can be breached, and the remedies may be different in different situations.
There are two main remedies that litigants seek and are awarded in a breach of contract lawsuit.
An award of damages is one of the most well-known remedies. The innocent party may seek all out-of-pocket expenses and unquantified damages (i.e., loss of business, reputational losses, etc.) that it has suffered as a result of the defaulting party. However, the question of what damages may be claimed and awarded is not always met with a simple answer. Although most damages suffered can be claimed, courts will often exclude damage that it considers to be ‘remote’, or which was not a ‘reasonably foreseeable’ consequence of the breach of contract.
Another remedy is called specific performance, which is a court declaration requiring a contracting party to fulfill its contractual obligations. This remedy is typically only granted when courts determine that damages are an inadequate remedy. It must be noted, however, that a declaration for specific performance does not actually force a party to fulfill their contractual obligations. In other words, although a court may award specific performance, the defaulting party may choose to ignore the order and to continue acting in breach of contract. In such situations, the innocent party may proceed to seek damages and may seek an order that the defaulting party is in contempt of court.
At Kamalie Law, our lawyers have extensive experience in litigating and resolving contract disputes. We have represented both the innocent party that wishes to commence a claim as well as the party who is alleged to be in breach of contract and is forced to defend a claim. In each scenario, our primary objective is to determine our client’s objectives and to formulate a strategy that will achieve that objective in the least time possible.