An Intervention on Interventions: Canada v. Pictou Landing First Nation, 2014 FCA 21

Stratas J.A. has suggested a new set of guidelines to govern applications for intervener status before the federal courts: Canada v. Pictou Landing First Nation, 2014 FCA 21.

Here they are:

I.                 Has the proposed intervener complied with the specific procedural requirements in Rule 109(2)? Is the evidence offered in support detailed and well-particularized? If the answer to either of these questions is no, the Court cannot adequately assess the remaining considerations and so it must deny intervener status. If the answer to both of these questions is yes, the Court can adequately assess the remaining considerations and assess whether, on balance, intervener status should be granted.
II.               Does the proposed intervener have a genuine interest in the matter before the Court such that the Court can be assured that the proposed intervener has the necessary knowledge, skills and resources and will dedicate them to the matter before the Court?
III.            In participating in this appeal in the way it proposes, will the proposed intervener advance different and valuable insights and perspectives that will actually further the Court’s determination of the matter?
IV.            Is it in the interests of justice that intervention be permitted? For example, has the matter assumed such a public, important and complex dimension that the Court needs to be exposed to perspectives beyond those offered by the particular parties before the Court? Has the proposed intervener been involved in earlier proceedings in the matter?
V.               Is the proposed intervention inconsistent with the imperatives in Rule 3, namely securing “the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits”? Are there terms that should be attached to the intervention that would advance the imperatives in Rule 3?

This represents an adjustment to the existing approach, as Stratas J.A. explains, and is in line with the liberal approach to intervener status taken by Canadian courts in recent times. Though the space and time accorded to interveners is often limited, the courthouse door is most certainly unlocked.

On the merits, the applications were granted in the present case:

[32]           Although the motions to intervene were brought well after the filing of the notice of appeal in this Court, the interventions will, at best, delay the hearing of the appeal by only the three weeks required to file memoranda of fact and law. Further, in these circumstances, and bearing in mind the fact that the issues the interveners will address are closely related to those already in issue, the existing parties will not suffer any significant prejudice. Consistent with the imperatives of Rule 3, I shall impose strict terms on the moving parties’ intervention.

This content has been updated on June 11, 2014 at 09:45.