Plautus Satire a écrit:

I initiated this process, why am I being treated like the defendant when I am the claimant?

I do not think a mediation process should be seen as a procedure where there is a claimant and a defendent To my humble opinion, nothing is ever white and black. Anyone does little mistakes sometimes, that does not mean they should undergo a trial and be punished. That is ok to make little mistakes, especially when we apology and try to make up for them afterwards. In mediation, we do just wish that people try to understand the other point of view better, and sometimes, when they understand better, they recognise the right of the other to think differently. And sometimes, they can reach an agreement, at least to forgive the other the mistake. There is no defended, and no claimant. Either both are "guilty" at the same time (since they are "guilty" at least in the other person eyes), or they are just people disagreeing on how to do things. You are perhaps not a bad person :-) Just a person who things differently of many of us here ;-)

Why is the process being ignored here?

There is no requirement of secrecy in mediation.

Yes, in our mediation, there is.

I do not wish it and do not intend to abide by secrecy.

Curps has refused this condition, thus he refuses mediation,

thus my case against him should go to arbitration.

It is up to you to refuse mediation. But *you* are the one refusing it, if you refuse secrecy. Not Curps. Good luck :-)