The Gift Lake Métis Settlement (“Gift Lake”) applied for Intervener status in an Appeal which touched on the interpretation of the role of the Registrar and Settlement Councils in terminating memberships of Metis settlement members. The Application was not opposed, but the Respondents requested that limits be placed on the nature and scope of the intervention. Veldhuis J.A. considered Rule 2.10 and noted that the granting of intervener status is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly. Her Ladyship cautioned that interveners should not be allowed to expand the lawsuit, delay proceedings or prejudice a party. Further, in an Appeal, interveners are not usually permitted to adduce additional evidence or raise fresh issues that are not supported by the record below. Veldhuis J.A., citing prior authority, stated that, in an Appeal, it is not suitable for an intervener to extend the argument from the Court below or the argument advanced in the Appeal. However, “an intervener may be permitted to argue a new point that is inextricably linked to an issue raised by the parties...”. Veldhuis J.A. emphasized that Gift Lake would be specially affected by the issue in the Appeal and granted Intervener status subject to conditions restricting the scope of argument and the time allotted for oral submissions.