Providing access to justice is a major challenge for any judicial system. Canada has gone to great lengths to meet this challenge over the past thirty years, in part by developing alternative dispute resolution methods. Unfortunately, results have been mixed. Canadian society is currently preparing to renew its vision of access to justice and the contribution of dispute resolution methods in meeting that challenge. What lessons can we learn from Canada’s experience? What are the new directions and initiatives for access to justice? Our paper suggests that the Canadian experience can make two contributions to the access to justice debate. First, we suggest that the notion is evolving in the legal community from an institutional perspective to a contextual vision of access to justice. Second, we point out an evolution of alternative or appropriate dispute resolution methods toward a participatory justice movement. Our paper proposes a new Canadian perspective on access to justice and dispute resolution methods.

Before starting as a community-mediator the mediator has to follow a training. In this training he learns how to act as a mediator when there is a dispute between neighbours. Important is to realize that in most of the neighbour quarrels not the conflict itself is the central problem. Mostly the problem is people do not feel heard, seen and recognized in their problems. In the training the mediator learns how to give attention to that real problem. In a mediation he has to be aware of his role as a mediator and of the professional attitude he must have. Besides that, the mediator must help the parties coming to be aware of their own behaviour.
Finally, community-mediator is not just a volunteer job. The mediator has to pay much attention to his way of communicating and should feel well in the entire process, such as making arrangements, conducting interviews with the parties, the conciliation conversation and aftercare.

On 26 May 2013 Ard van der Steur, Netherlands MP for the liberal democrats, introduced a cluster of three mediation bills to secure the status of mediation as a sound alternative to traditional in-court adjudication in civil and administrative disputes. Although the starting point in these bills is that mediation should take place on a voluntary basis, there are some arrangements that may result in quasi compulsory mediation. One such arrangement is that the judge, on his own motion, may refer parties to mediation. Also parties have to proof that they first have attempted to settle their dispute through mediation and if not, why not.

The IMI held a International Corporate Users Survey in January to March of 2013, evaluating the needs, views and preferences of in-house counsel when using the services of arbitrators and mediators. The survey concerned (1) criteria used to select mediators and arbitrators (2), as well as the role of a mediator and external attorneys in mediation. The survey was intended to fill the gaps in two previous surveys performed in the USA and the UK in 2011.