The Applicants, Piikani and Siksika Nations (the “Nations”) applied for permission to intervene in the upcoming Appeals between the Stoney Nakoda Nations (“Stoney”) and Alberta and Canada from the decision in Wesley v Alberta, 2022 ABKB 713 (“Wesley 2022”). In the Wesley 2022 decision, the Case Management Judge dismissed Stoney’s claims for remedial relief but allowed Stoney’s claims for declaratory relief to proceed. Stoney appealed the dismissal of the claims for remedial relief and Alberta appealed the denial of Summary Dismissal of the claims for declaratory relief (the “Appeals”). The Nations applied to be added as intervenors in the Appeals stemming from the Wesley 2022 decision.

The Court noted that a single Appeal Justice has jurisdiction to render a Decision on an Application to intervene under Rules 14.37(2)(e) and 14.58. The Court also noted that Rule 14.58(3) provides that, unless otherwise ordered, an intervenor may not raise or argue issues not raised by the other parties to the Appeal. The test for intervenor status considers: (1) whether the proposed intervenor has a particular interest in, or will be directly and significantly affected by the outcome of the Appeal, or (2) whether the intervenor will provide some special expertise, perspective, or information that will help resolve the Appeal.

The Nations submitted that the Decisions arising from the Appeals would have far-reaching implications. The Nations also noted that their proposed intervention would not prejudice the parties or expand the issues or factual record and has the support of other. The Court noted that the Nations’ interest in these Appeals was primarily jurisprudential which is generally insufficient to justify intervenor status. The Court concluded further that the Applicants had failed to demonstrate that they brought a sufficiently different perspective or expertise to the Appeals, beyond that which can be expected to be presented by the parties. The Application to intervene was dismissed.