Sawridge First Nation (“SFN”) applied for intervenor status in an upcoming Application. In 1982, SFN Chief Walter Twinn created a trust for “all members, present and future, of the Band” (the “1982 Trust”). Anticipating Bill C-32’s restoration of status to Indian women who had lost it by marrying non-Indian men, SFN Chief Walter Twinn established a second trust in 1985 limiting beneficiaries to pre-Bill C-31 members (the “1985 Trust”), transferring the 1982 Trust’s assets to it.

The Parties agreed that the 1985 Trust’s beneficiary definition was discriminatory. The upcoming Application seeks to confirm if Trustees can distribute funds despite this. SFN applied for intervenor status to argue that distribution under the current, discriminatory definition, is contrary to public policy and should not be permitted. While the Trustees and other Parties did not oppose SFN’s intervention, the Trustees sought to limit its scope.

Justice Little confirmed that under Rule 2.10, a Court may grant intervenor status and specify any terms and conditions. Citing R v McKee, 2023 ABKB 579, Little J. noted that intervenors are uncommon at the Trial level since they must remain focused and manageable, whereas Appellate Courts, working with a pre-established record, are better equipped to control the process, including the scope and length of intervenor submissions.

Applying the test for intervention from Wilcox v Her Majesty the Queen in right of Alberta, 2019 ABCA 385, Little J. considered whether SFN was directly affected, necessary for a proper decision, has interests otherwise not fully protected, can provide useful expertise, and whether their involvement might cause undue delay, prejudice to parties, broaden the dispute, or politicize the court.

Though the parties consented to SFN’s intervention, Little J. reviewed these factors to set the appropriate scope of intervention. Little J. found that SFN represented potentially excluded members, unlike the Office of the Public Guardian or Catherine Twinn, and could provide distinct legal submissions without new evidence. Further, the Court noted that SFN’s involvement, while causing some delay, was not undue given the case’s complexity, and found there would be no prejudice or broadening of the dispute. Justice Little also determined that, since the issue was one of trust law and not politics, intervention was appropriate within defined limits.

Little J. also emphasized that a relevant factor is whether a party had previously been granted intervenor status in earlier proceedings, noting SFN’s consistent history of intervention at both the Court of Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal.

Consequently, Little J. ordered that SFN be permitted to intervene on the conditions that it submit a written brief within the specified page limits and deadline, be allowed 60 minutes for oral argument, refrain from raising issues not raised by the parties, and bear its own costs.