The Applicant sought an exemption from the mandatory Dispute Resolution Process pursuant to Rule 4.16. Associate Chief Justice Nixon considered the conditions which must be met, pursuant to Rule 4.16(2), for a Court to waive the requirement for parties to participate. The Plaintiff argued that the nature of the claim was not one that is likely to result in an agreement and that engaging in Dispute Resolution would be futile.

The Court ultimately held that the circumstances for a waiver of the Dispute Resolution Process were not met and that granting the Application was premature. Nixon A.C.J. was not satisfied that: (i) there had been a previous dispute resolution process; (ii) the nature of the claim was one that was unlikely to result in an agreement between the parties; (iii) there was a compelling reason why a dispute resolution process should not be attempted; (iv) engaging in a dispute resolution process would be futile; or (v) a Court decision was necessary or desirable.

The parties were instructed to exhaust the “normal procedures” as provided in the Rules, before one or both parties could seek a waiver pursuant to Rule 4.16(2).