They were positive about the outcome and the assistance provided by commission facilitators. Many did indicate, however, that more assistance in determining appropriate compensation would have been helpful.

The commission introduced early resolution in March 1994 as an alternative to investigation. Through early resolution, the parties are able to settle their complaint early on, without going through the investigation process. One benefit of early resolution is that complaints can be resolved more quickly.

In the last fiscal year, the investigations unit resolved 21 cases through early resolution settlements. This figure does not fully reflect the success of early resolution, because some cases involved multiple complainants. In one case, for example, 12 complainants resolved their sexual harassment complaints against a Saskatchewan restauranteur.

Early resolution questionnaire

A small number of complainants and respondents who had opted for early resolution - some successfully and some not - expressed their dissatisfaction with the process to the commission and to the media. Concerned about the effectiveness of the process, the commission designed a questionnaire to determine the satisfaction levels of those who had gone through the process.

In the spring of 1996, the commission surveyed complainants and respondents who had gone through early resolution, both those who had been successful in achieving a settlement and those who had not. (Complaints that can't be resolved by early resolution continue through the process by way of investigation.)

More than 100 questionnaires were sent out; there was a response rate of slightly less than 50 percent. Questionnaires were also sent to lawyers who had been involved in the process.

Questions were asked about the information provided to participants, both written and verbal; about the participants' understanding of the process; about the assistance provided by the facilitator; about whether the participants felt encouraged or pressured; what the participants liked about the early resolution process and what they didn't like. There was also an opportunity to comment on how the process could be improved.

Participants in the survey responded in the following ways:

information provided: a high percentage of complainants and respondents felt that there was enough information provided about early resolution and that it was easy to understand. Ninety percent of the respondents and 80 percent of the complainants found favour with the written materials, in particular.

encouragement provided: most complainants and respondents said they felt encouraged to enter the process, but some said they felt pressured rather than encouraged. Twenty-one percent of complainants reported they felt pressured, while 30 percent of the respondents said they felt pressured.

They reported that the pressure came from Commission staff, from their lawyers, from friends and co-workers.

Those complainants who felt pressured said it was because of repeated mention of early resolution and comments about the length of time it would take to investigate a complaint. Respondents said they felt pressured by having to choose between early resolution and investigation in a short period of time.

reasons for choosing early resolution: For complainants, the most common reasons for choosing early resolution were: it was the quickest way to solve the problem; it was less confrontational; it provided the compensation they wanted.

For respondents, the most common reasons for choosing early resolution were: it was the quickest way to solve the problem; it was less confrontational; there wasn't anything better.

what complainants didn't like: Often, settlements are agreed to "without admission of liability." Many complainants - 64 percent - indicated that they would have been happier with the settlement if the respondent had acknowledged that he or she had violated the Code.

As well, one-third of the complainants indicated they would have been happier with the settlement if the respondent had agreed to make the settlement public.

role of the facilitator: During the early resolution process, the facilitator is not an advocate for either side. Most complainants and respondents had a very good understanding that the role of the facilitator was to be neutral and impartial.