As of March 2021 it is recommended that indiviudals to seek family mediators support before moving to arbitration and court process.

Parenting Plan

Allow our family mediators to help you come up with a parenting plan that not only has your voice but your child voice in the plan.

Welcome to Collaborative Mediation Law

We are a not-for-profit organization designed to support families in your community. We serve all across Ontario and Canada. Our services are provided in-person and virtually.

All Mediation services are $120/hr, Arbitration matters are $240/hr, Parent Co-ordinator services are $120/hr, Voice Of The Child Report is $180/hr

Services We Provide:

  • Re-evaluation of Parenting Schedule 
  • Child-Closed Mediation
  • Voice of the Child Report
  • Mediation / Arbitration
  • Parent Coordinator
  • Common-law Rights & Support
  • Mortgage Transfer During Relationship Breakup
  • Parenting Alienation
  • Holiday & Overnight Access
  • Grandparents & Parenting Schedules
  • Retroactive Support

Seminars & Podcasts

Our seminars and podcasts help you and your family move forward and cope with the trauma of separation and divorce.

We can help. Don't let frustration control your judgement.

Breaking up is hard to do, but it gets easier with the right advice and guidance. Our professional team is here to advise, guide and support you and your child's emotional well being and plan your asset separation and financial transition.
Collaborative Mediation Law - Ontario's Premier Mediation and Separation Services

What Our CLients Said

Frequently asked

Breaking up is tough on your family, children and yourself, but it will be alright!. Visit our FAQ and Contact Us for Free consultation today.
  • Does a wife need to bear the consequences of her husband’s early retirement?

    In the 2010 case of Dishman v. Dishman, the husband accepted an early retirement buyout from General Motors which had the effect of decreasing his income from approximately $85,000 to $38,000 per year.

    The Dishmans were married for 20 years later. After they separated in 2000, a final order required Mr. Dishman to pay his wife $750 per month in spousal support.

    Nine years later in 2009, when Mr. Dishman was 52 years, his employer General Motors announced that it was closing its plant where he worked for 28 years. He was offered an early retirement incentive. Mr. Dishman could have continued to work for a few more years. However, if General Motors went bankrupt before that date, then the offer would no longer be available. Mr. Dishman accepted the offer and retired on June 1, 2009.

    To convince Madam Justice Nolan to terminate spousal support, Mr. Dishman explained that his pension with General Motors had already been equalized with his wife when they settled their affairs in 2001. Mrs. Dishman kept the matrimonial home. The amount owed by Mrs. Dishman to Mr. Dishman for his share of the matrimonial home was off-set by the value of Mr. Dishman’s pension at the time. In calculating the amount of Mr. Dishman’s pension at that time, the parties valued it based on a retirement age of 59 years, as opposed to the 52 years when he actually retired. Stated another way, Mrs. Dishman argued that a significant portion of her husband’s pension was not equalized at the time of the agreement or court order.

    Madam Justice Nolan relied on a series of past decisions such as Moffatt v. Moffatt (2003) that established that where there is early retirement that will severely prejudice the recipient spouse, the court may assign income as though the person had not retired. The judge also considered Bullock v. Bullock (2007) which held that a support payor cannot choose to be voluntarily underemployed, whether by retirement or otherwise, and therefore avoid his or her spousal support payment obligations.

    Her Honour found that Mr. Dishman’s retirement was considerably earlier than anticipated, and Mrs. Dishman had good reason to rely upon support being provided for several more years. She stated that there is no reason why Mr. Dishman might not and cannot be expected to seek new employment opportunities and that Mrs. Dishman was in need and had a limited ability to earn more income.

    In conclusion, the court found that this was a long marriage, that spousal support was payable because Mrs. Dishman was in need and should not be expected to bear all of the negative financial consequences of Mr. Dishman’s early retirement and, accordingly, the spousal support payments of $750 per month were to continue until 2016.

  • What is neutral evaluation?

    Other than mediation and litigation, other methods that are available to settle the outstanding issues are neutral evaluation, arbitration and mediation/arbitration. Neutral evaluation is a process whereby the spouses jointly retain a professional evaluator, who is usually an experienced family lawyer, to provide a formal opinion of the probable outcome of the issues presented to the evaluator. This process usually involves the participation of the spouses and their lawyers. The lawyers present the evaluator with a brief that consists of each spouse’s position, the relevant evidence and the legal authorities that he or she relies on. The purpose of neutral evaluation is to assist the spouses and their lawyers to overcome an issue that prevents the case from moving forward. For example, one spouse may believe that spousal support should be paid for a period of no more than five years, while the other spouse believes that spousal support payments should not end. In neutral evaluation, unlike mediation, the evaluator is specifically retained to provide an opinion and the reasons for that opinion.

  • Who will be my mediator?

    Your mediator will be assigned to you based on the information provided in your intake forms. All our mediators have multiple years of experience working with families and children to help our clients succeed.

GEt A Free


Speak With Our
Experts Today!

Get a quote