14.57: Adding, removing or substituting parties to an appeal
14.58: Intervenor status on appeal

Case Summary

This Application involves three parties who were seeking to get involved in an Application for permission to Appeal a Tribunal’s Decision. One sought leave to be added as a party, and in the alternative, as an intervenor to the Application; two others sought leave to be added as interveners.

Ho JA noted that the Court could add a party to an Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.57 or pursuant to the Court’s inherent power. The relevant test was (1) whether it was just and convenient to add the Applicant, and (2) whether or not the Applicant’s interest would only be adequately protected if it were granted party status.

A party could only be granted intervenor status pursuant to Rule 14.58. The factors to be considered were whether the intervenor (1) was directly affect; (2) was necessary to properly decide the matter; (3) had interests in the proceedings that would not be fully protected; (4) could contribute useful and different submission expertise; (5) would not unduly delay the proceedings; (6) would suffer any possible prejudice; (7) would widen the dispute between the parties; and (8) would  transform the court into a political arena.

Ho JA found that one of the proposed intervenor’s prior involvement in the deal between the Plaintiff and Defendant was of central important to the proceedings, and confirmed that that entity had a unique role and interest, and it did not seek to adduce any fresh evidence or broaden the dispute. One of the other proposed intervenors - a First Nation - indicated their lands encompassed the developments plans at issue and were still used for traditional and cultural practices. Ho J found that the Nation was uniquely positioned to address their interests which would not be advanced by the other parties. Ultimately Her Ladyship was satisfied that those two parties met the test to be added as intervenors; the third did not.

View CanLII Details