Maurice Stoney unsuccessfully applied to be added as a party or intervenor to an Action along with his sisters and brothers with the aim of being recognized as a beneficiary of a trust. The Application was denied by the Case Management Justice, and Costs were awarded against Mr. Stoney (“Stoney Decision”). The Case Management Justice also awarded Costs against Mr. Stoney’s counsel, Ms. Kennedy personally (“Kennedy Decision”).

Ms. Kennedy applied for party or intervenor status on the Appeal of the Stoney Decision, arguing that she needed to participate in that Appeal in order to properly challenge the Kennedy Decision. Watson J.A. noted that a single Judge has jurisdiction to permit an intervention pursuant to Rule 14.37(2)(e), and Rules 14.57 and 14.58 distinguish between Applications for status as a party or as an intervenor. Rule 14.1(1)(k) provides the definition for “party” which includes an intervenor.

Justice Watson reviewed the leading Alberta case law on the test for intervenor status and determined that Ms. Kennedy did not meet the test for intervenor status. Turning to the issue of full participation rights, Watson J.A. stated that Ms. Kennedy would only be entitled to participation rights in the Appeal of the Stoney Decision if the results of that Appeal “would have an operative legal effect to cabin or crimp” Ms. Kennedy’s ability to argue her Appeal of the Kennedy Decision.

Watson J.A. determined that Ms. Kennedy had no personal interest in how the Appeal of the Stoney Decision proceeded, and justice would not be impaired for Ms. Kennedy or Mr. Stoney if intervenor status was denied. As such, the Application was dismissed.