The Court considered whether the Appellant should be granted intervenor status in a Summary Judgment Application related to a personal injury claim. The Appellant sought to participate in the proceedings to argue that no enforceable settlement had been reached, which would potentially affect a parallel professional negligence claim brought against him. The Court considered Rule 2.10, noting that the Court has broad discretion to grant intervenor status, guided by common law principles. These include whether the intervenor has a direct and significant interest in the outcome, and whether they would bring unique expertise or a useful perspective to the matter.

Justice Silver upheld the decision of Applications Judge Mason, concluding that the Appellant did not meet the threshold for intervention. The Court found that the professional negligence claim was a collateral proceeding and would not be directly or necessarily impacted by the outcome of the Summary Judgment Application. Additionally, the Appellant’s proposed contribution was not considered unique or necessary. His arguments regarding the enforceability of the settlement could be sufficiently advanced by the parties already before the Court. The Appellant’s desire to introduce evidence and legal arguments was better suited to the role of a witness, not an intervenor, particularly given concerns about solicitor-client privilege and the risk of distracting from the main issues.

Ultimately, the Court emphasized that granting intervenor status must serve the administration of justice, not the private interests of the proposed intervenor. The risk that the proceeding would be delayed, complicated, or distracted weighed against intervention. Justice Silver found no error in Application Judge Mason’s decision, and concluded that the Summary Judgment could proceed fairly and justly without the Appellant’s participation as an intervenor. The Appeal was dismissed.