Making an apology has never been an easy thing to do, whether it is in business, politics, a courtroom, or in our personal lives. But recently, the government of British Columbia joined a growing list of jurisdictions worldwide in making it a little easier to apologize. In 2006, the B.C. Apology Act (S.B.C. 2006, c.19) was enacted, effectively removing the legal consequences for apologizing, or saying "I'm sorry," in connection with an event.
Specifically, the Act provides that an apology or other expression of sympathy or regret does not constitute an admission of fault or liability, and is not admissible in any court as evidence of fault or liability. It further provides that such an apology will not void or otherwise affect negatively any insurance coverage.
The Act arose in response to a growing trend in Canada, the United States and other nations to encourage businesses and individuals to acknowledge when they have done harm to others, and thereby to promote the resolution of disputes. The hope is that apology laws will help reduce the number and duration of lawsuits, thereby easing court backlogs and saving time and money for businesses and individuals.
Historically, our responses to business, tort or criminal conflicts have most often been adversarial, driven by the desire to protect ourselves from liability. Lawyers counsel their clients to refrain from making any acknowledgment of fault or liability, often going so far as to restrict even expressions of regret or sympathy. The insurance context is no different, with insurers advising motorists never to admit fault after an accident. Some policies even purport to deny coverage outright where the insured makes any acknowledgment of fault or liability. Businesses often throw up a wall of red tape in front of customers trying to complain of faulty products or poor service. The fear has always been that an apology in these circumstances would be used against the apology-maker.
The result of this philosophy towards fault is that many disputes end up in litigation where an honest and open apology might otherwise have resolved the issue much more quickly and economically. In many cases, people who feel they have been wronged by someone else simply want an acknowledgment of the wrong and an expression of apology or regret from that other person.  Every lawyer has had at least one case in which the client refused an otherwise fair financial settlement because "it's not about the money - it's the principle!" In most cases, such clients are simply looking for an acknowledgment of the wrong, either from the other party or from a court. Often a simple, yet sincere, apology at any time in the process will provide the satisfaction sought.Â
Apology legislation holds the hope that apologies will be more readily available by eliminating the fear that an apology will be used against the apology-maker in future legal proceedings. Studies and anecdotal evidence from jurisdictions that have implemented apology legislation show positive results, with reduced litigation, reduced court backlogs, and higher consumer satisfaction in the commercial context.
The trend is growing. The Saskatchewan Legislature is considering similar legislation that would take the form of an amendment to its Evidence Act. Nearly half of the U.S. states have some form of apology legislation in effect. Governments, corporations and institutions across North America have begun taking a more pro-active stance toward acknowledging fault and issuing apologies.Â
Consider the Canadian Government's recent public apology to Maher Arar, with the accompanying multi-million dollar settlement of his claim. Arar himself made it clear that the apology, not the money, was his primary motivation.  And many legal analysts speculate that, without the apology, Arar might have pursued -- and would likely have obtained -- a much higher settlement. Many U.S.-based airlines have begun issuing personal, written apologies to customers inconvenienced by delays, poor service and other contingencies. Even A-list celebrities like Mel Gibson have begun making public admissions and apologies for improper behaviour as part of their personal and public-image rehabilitations.
One criticism of apology legislation is the concern that making an apology might become too easy, resulting in standardized, form-letter apologies issued as a matter of course. Such insincere apologies would lose the positive impacts discussed above, and might ultimately result in greater irritation to the recipient. The long-term effects cannot yet be determined. Further, the B.C. Apology Act has yet to be examined or tested by the courts. Future judicial analysis might provide some more interesting fodder for discussion.
An apology alone won't necessarily resolve every problem. But it can be a critical step in reducing animosity between parties in conflict. Can an apology help most disputes? Yes. And now, in British Columbia at least, it can't hurt.
Duane Chris is a non-practicing lawyer providing legal research and editing services in Southern Ontario. He can be reached at dchris@sympatico.ca or 519-588-2602.