Which statement aligns with possible penalties for resisting ADR?

Which statement aligns with possible penalties for resisting ADR?

• A. The court must always grant a stay.
• B. A costs sanction may be imposed on them at the conclusion of the proceedings.
• C. The case is automatically dismissed.
• D. The mediator must be appointed at the party's expense.

Answer: (B)

Resisting ADR triggers cost consequences. Courts encourage parties to use ADR to settle disputes more efficiently, and if a party unreasonably refuses to engage in ADR, the court has the power to order a costs sanction against that party at the end of the proceedings. This reflects the idea that refusing ADR can waste time and resources that ADR might have avoided. So the best fit is that a costs sanction may be imposed on them at the conclusion of the proceedings. The other options don’t align with how ADR resistance is treated: stays aren’t automatic simply because ADR was refused; cases aren’t automatically dismissed for not ADR-ing; and appointing a mediator at a party’s expense isn’t a standard consequence of resisting ADR in this context.

Resisting ADR triggers cost consequences. Courts encourage parties to use ADR to settle disputes more efficiently, and if a party unreasonably refuses to engage in ADR, the court has the power to order a costs sanction against that party at the end of the proceedings. This reflects the idea that refusing ADR can waste time and resources that ADR might have avoided.

So the best fit is that a costs sanction may be imposed on them at the conclusion of the proceedings. The other options don’t align with how ADR resistance is treated: stays aren’t automatic simply because ADR was refused; cases aren’t automatically dismissed for not ADR-ing; and appointing a mediator at a party’s expense isn’t a standard consequence of resisting ADR in this context.