canada evidence small-claims-court negotiations
Is it bad to have communication with opposing party outside of court?
<p>I started a claim against someone. The level of court does not require lawyers. The defendant rejected all my claims through the court, but contacted me by email saying he wishes to meet in person to discuss them. My initial reaction is this is a bad idea, but I'm wondering if there's any legal reason why I shouldn't meet with him? </p>

<p>One of the reasons I found it necessary to take legal action in the first place, was he refused to talk to me and said he blocked my messages. I guess now he's unblocked me. In the past he's done tricks where he pretends to give me an option, but then a short time latter says since I never replied he assumes I want to do x. I don't want him to be able to use any of these arguments in court. If I don't meet or reply to his email, can he then say I'm refusing to negotiate? He is a very dishonest person. </p>

<h2>No, it’s not bad</h2>

<p>In fact it can do a great deal of good. It’s entirely possible that you will negotiate a settlement that is better for both of you than court.</p>

<p>Negotiations undertaken in such circumstances are inadmissible in court - the legal term is <a href="https://www.colemangreig.com.au/News-925-What-does-without-prejudice-mean.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">without prejudice</a>. The reasoning is that is good public policy for parties to be able to resolve disputes without needing a court and that they should be free to make admissions, concessions and offers without the threat that these will be used against them if they do need to go to court.</p>

<h2>Be careful about accusing people of things like ‘dishonesty’</h2>

<p>First, interpretation of other people’s behaviour depends a lot on where you stand. If you are in dispute with someone you are likely to attribute motives to them that may not be there or may not be apparent to a more detached observer. For example, offers can be withdrawn at any time prior to their acceptance - doing so is not “dishonest”.</p>

<p>Second, (dis)honesty is a question of fact, not opinion, and it involves more than whether someone is always truthful - people can tell falsehoods and still be honest. Stating that someone is dishonest when you can’t prove that they are, in fact, dishonest is defamation.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Is it bad to have communication with opposing party outside of court?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Communication outside the court is not necessarily a bad idea. However, it is in your best interest to ensure that those communications be always <em>in writing</em> or --subject to any consent rules that may apply in your jurisdiction-- <em>recorded</em>. That is especially recommendable if you have reasons to distrust the opposing party.</p>

<p>Taking that precaution will help you disprove the opposing party's allegations if he (1) falsely accuses you later on; (2) obfuscates the controversy with "<em>I said, he said</em>" in a way that impairs the court's task of fact-finding and/or of identifying whether a settlement had been reached in the negotiations; or (3) disavows the terms of the settlement you two reached.</p>
