Online Dispute Resolution, AI, and Access to Family Law Justice

We have expressed concern with Access to Justice in Family Law for years; since the turn of the century.  

Like then, we continue to ask “what can, should we do about it?” In Canada, the Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, published its’ report, “Access to Civil and Family Justice: A Roadmap for Change”  in 2013. It called for culture change, more focus on resolution, simplified processes, proportionality in dispute resolution, the use of technology and putting the public first. These remain largely unfulfilled aspirations.

For most families, the traditional family law system remains too expensive (systemically and individually), too slow, too adversarial, too complex and too difficult to navigate. Even where meaningful reforms have been introduced, they have not gone far enough. We have nibbled at culture change. Mediation, judicial settlement conferences, and other problem-solving processes have improved outcomes for some, but they remain out of reach for many. If we are serious about improving access to family law justice, we need to consider tools and processes that are more accessible, more scalable, more timely,  and more responsive to how families actually experience conflict. They should be simple, coherent, proportional and useable.

Online dispute resolution platforms that incorporate artificial intelligence offer part of that solution. 

The barriers in Family Law Justice are well known. 

First, there is the financial cost to litigants. Many litigants cannot afford legal advice or representation at all. Others can access counsel, but only with a financial impact that places unreasonable pressure on the family itself. These are distinct problems, but they are closely related: unaffordable services and prohibitively priced processes both make resolution more costly and add to the emotional impact of family dispute resolution.

Second, systemic cost is significant. Legal Aid services cannot be provided to all with family law problems, it simply costs too much. Our Justice System has invested in whole levels of Courts devoted to family disputes. This has enabled some improvement, but not yet been a game changer. 

Third is delay. Delay is not a neutral inconvenience in family cases. It often allows conflict to deepen and metastasize. It increases stress, and harms children and families who crave predictability and stability. A system that allows disputes to linger for months or years is simply not functioning in accordance with the core principles of effective dispute resolution.

Fourth is the related problem of containment. Family files too often expand as parties respond to one another’s allegations and attempt to outdo each other’s accusations. Matters that should focus on the future reorganization of the family instead become consumed by grievances from the past. Sometimes history matters, of course. But not every conflict benefits from an autopsy of each parties past behavior. One of the central challenges in family dispute resolution is keeping the dispute focused on what must actually be resolved. Adversarialism and delay can confound this.

Fifth, there is complexity. Family law rules of procedure and evidence, and the formality of required court documentation are difficult for many members of the public (and bar) to understand, let alone navigate effectively. For self-represented parties, forms and filing requirements can become barriers in themselves. 

Sixth, geography exaggerates all of these issues. Rural and remote communities often face fewer services, less support, and greater difficulty accessing both legal and dispute resolution resources.

Seventh, there is a lack of creativity. Constructive dispute resolution depends on identifying interests, generating options, and moving away from rigid positional bargaining. Yet the adversarial structure of the legal system pushes parties toward hardened positions. Alternative processes have helped, but many families still never reach those processes, or reach them only after conflict has already escalated. Our traditional and arguably current family justice system tilts towards positions, not interests, the past rather than the future. 

These are not new observations. Few would say that these issues are resolved.

We have worked to improve, worked hard. There has been limited “culture change”. 

After a career spent within the family justice system, I remain proud of the progress that has been made toward more collaborative and problem-solving approaches. At the same time, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have fallen short. We have not sufficiently improved accessibility, and we have not significantly diminished the barriers to Family Law Dispute Resolution enumerated above. Reforms that fail to address cost, complexity, delay, containment, creativity, and geography are unlikely to produce meaningful change. Our work is far from done. What can we do? What’s next?

Platforms that combine Online Dispute Resolution and AI Assistance such as Amica and Civily have the potential of making a serious dent in addressing these barriers.

Amica, developed in Australia in partnership with organizations including the Legal Services Commission of South Australia, National Legal Aid, and the Federal Attorney-General’s Department, has reportedly served thousands of separating couples since 2018. Its purpose is practical and ambitious: to guide users through document preparation, disclosure, division of assets, parenting agreements, negotiation, and court filing. Civily represents a North American progeny of that model.

These platforms are not a cure-all. But they may help address some of the most persistent “barriers” to  Family Justice. 

Most obviously, an online platform is accessible wherever there is internet or cellular service. That alone matters. A process available by computer, tablet, or phone can reach people who may never be able to attend multiple in-person appointments or travel easily to legal services.

These platforms may also reduce delay and improve the quality of document preparation. Anyone who has worked in family law knows that incomplete forms, filing mistakes, and missing information create major bottlenecks. A guided platform can help users prepare materials more consistently and more efficiently. Where additional support is needed, that support could come from legal aid offices, paralegals, volunteer clinics, or coached group sessions. The technology does not have to replace people; it can help organize, frame and support the human assistance that remains essential. 

A further possible benefit is issue identification and containment. Well-designed ODR systems can help users focus on the information needed to resolve property issues, support, parenting arrangements, and related matters. They can reduce, though never eliminate, the tendency of disputes to sprawl to irrelevant accusations and counteraccusations. Domestic violence and other serious concerns will always require careful handling and may demand processes beyond what a platform alone can provide. But even in those cases, better information gathering and clearer issue framing can improve the pace and quality of the file. online interaction does not have the same risks as in person processes. Document preparation and drafting could improve their quality and assist the self represented, legal aid offices, lawyers’ intake processes, and Courts (especially Courts intake offices.)

Perhaps most promising for dispute managers (counsel, mediators, judges) is the potential for option generation. If both parties use a platform, AI tools could generate different possible pathways for resolution. That does not mean the system tells users what the answer is. It means it can help people begin where many disputes stall: by developing a variety of workable options. In negotiation terms, this supports a shift away from positional conflict and toward interest-based problem solving. Any agreement should still be subject to legal advice before it is finalized. But informed option development can benefit parties, counsel, mediators, and even judges. Indeed it is at the core of meaningful negotiation processes.

Canada has already shown leadership in this space. British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal demonstrates that online platforms can be flexible, iterative, and resolution-focused, while still recognizing that some disputes require a facilitator or decision-maker.

There is no silver bullet in Family Justice. We are not, at least now looking to replace the processes we have but we are looking to add to them, and give families other options. There is real opportunity to improve. ODR platforms that responsibly incorporate AI have the potential to make a significant contribution to Access to Justice in Family Law. They deserve critical examination, testing, and thoughtful implementation. For family mediators and justice leaders alike, the question is not whether change is needed. We know that it is needed. How will we continue to pursue reforms capable of delivering more effective pathways to Family Dispute Resolution?

Our focus should be on the public. Reforms that fail to address the issues of cost, delay, problem containment, complexity, geography and (lack of )creativity in Family Dispute problem solving are not culture change. Culture change will only happen if we become less risk averse and more focussed on outcomes for the public. We should be more ambitious and measure each reform we advocate for against its’ impact on the barriers that continue to vex us.

Jim Williams

The Honorable Jim Williams retired from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in 2024 after more than 38 years on the Bench. He has spent his career in Family Law Dispute Resolution, as a lawyer, a Judge and educator - having taught terms at law schools in Nova Scotia, Alberta,… MORE