Construction disputes are often very hard to litigate. There are a lot of moving parts. Marvin Huberman is a mediation expert in Ontario. See the video below.
Regarding construction disputes, you’re looking at one of the most tangled webs in the legal world. It’s not your average disagreement over a contract.
This is a high-stakes chess game with too many players, endless rules, and moving pieces everywhere. If you’ve ever dealt with a construction dispute, you know it’s not just about money. It’s delays, reputational liabilities, and often entire livelihoods hanging in the balance.
So, why not just litigate? Take it to court and let the judge hammer it out, right?
Not so fast.
Litigation in this field can turn into an absolute nightmare.
The timelines are glacial, the costs astronomical, and the outcomes rarely offer a clean resolution. Enter alternative dispute resolution—mediation, arbitration, or a hybrid. You’re doing it wrong if you haven’t considered ADR for resolving these complex construction conflicts.
Let’s understand why alternative dispute resolution is practically tailor-made for this space and why people like Marvin Huberman, a highly respected mediation expert from Ontario, are making waves in this area.
Construction Disputes: A Unique Beast
To appreciate why ADR fits like a glove, you must first understand why construction disputes are so complex. In most cases, you’ve got a long roster of stakeholders: owners, contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, suppliers, insurers, lenders—you name it.
And these people don’t just sign one contract and call it a day. You’re dealing with layers of interconnected agreements, which means one issue can cascade into five more.
Then there’s the nature of the disputes themselves. Defects, delays, cost overruns, scope creep, weather conditions, compliance issues—it’s all part of the game. One missed delivery or unforeseen snag, and suddenly, you’ve got a claim for hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Add to that the fact that construction law is full of gray areas. It’s highly technical, localized, and dependent on a labyrinth of industry standards and codes.
This isn’t a playground for straightforward legal arguments. It’s a maze that’s tailor-made for alternative dispute resolution.
Going to court for construction disputes is expensive
If you’ve ever been involved in a construction dispute, you know how quickly things get messy. These aren’t straightforward conflicts—they’re like a domino effect of delays, cost overruns, and finger-pointing between a dozen stakeholders. You’ve got contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers, and sometimes even lenders all tangled up in contracts that overlap and contradict.
So, what’s the first instinct when things go sideways? For many, it’s litigation. But here’s the thing: while courtrooms might seem logical, they’re usually the worst way to deal with construction disputes.
Let’s start with time. Litigation is painfully slow. When a decision is handed down, the project could already be over or bankrupt. Construction thrives on strict schedules, and drawn-out court battles only derail things further.
And then there’s the cost. Fighting a case in court isn’t just expensive—it’s cripplingly expensive. Between hiring experts, sorting through a mountain of documents, and paying legal fees, you could spend more than the claim itself.
Judges control your project
The real kicker, though? The uncertainty.
Judges, for all their expertise, aren’t construction specialists. Sure, they’ll listen to experts, but ultimately, the decision is for someone who doesn’t live and breathe construction. It’s a roll of the dice, and that’s a scary place to be when you’re dealing with millions in potential losses.
Oh, and let’s not forget the fallout. Litigation tends to burn bridges. The construction industry is small, and relationships are everything. Suing someone today could mean losing out on partnerships tomorrow.
That’s where alternative dispute resolution comes in. Mediation and arbitration offer something litigation doesn’t—control. You can choose a mediator who understands the ins and outs of construction.
For example, people like Marvin Huberman in Ontario have built their careers helping parties resolve disputes without turning the process into a bloodbath. With ADR, you’re working with someone who gets it and knows how to untangle the complexities without dragging things through the mud.
Have flexibility with ADR
Alternative dispute resolution also focuses on collaboration. It’s not about declaring winners and losers but finding a way forward. That matters in an industry where reputation can make or break you. Plus, it’s flexible. The rigid timelines and rules of a courtroom do not bind you. Parties can decide the schedule, the ground rules, and even where and how they want to meet.
And perhaps the most underrated perk? Privacy.
Court cases are public by default, which means airing your dirty laundry for everyone to see. ADR happens behind closed doors, protecting your reputation and keeping sensitive details out of the spotlight.
ADR makes sense for construction disputes. It’s faster, less expensive, and tailored to the realities of the industry. Litigation might have its place, but if you’re looking for a resolution that works for everyone involved, ADR is where it’s at.
What’s your take? If you’ve been through a construction dispute, did you stick with litigation or take the alternative dispute resolution route? I would love to hear what worked—or didn’t—for you.
