Hartling v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General)

Hartling v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) Court Supreme Court Date 2006-03-01 Citation 2006 NSSC 144 Docket SH 236705 Judge/Registrar/Adjudicator Robertson, M. Heather (Honourable Justice) Document Type Decision Decision Content IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hartling v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2006 NSSC 144 Decision Date: 20060301 Docket: SH No. 236705 Registry: Halifax Between: Helen Hartling, Anna Marie MacDonald and The Nova Scotia Coalition Against No-Fault Insurance Society, an incorporated association Applicants v. The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing Her Majesty The Queen In Right of the Province of Nova Scotia Respondent -and- Insurance Bureau of Canada, an incorporated association and Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, a body corporate Proposed Interveners Judge: The Honourable Justice M. Heather Robertson Heard: February 23 and March 1, 2006, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Written Decision: May 10, 2006 (Oral: March 1, 2006) Counsel: Barry Mason, for the applicants Louise Poirier, for the respondent Jeff Galway, for the proposed interveners Robertson, J. (Orally): [1] I have concluded as you have gathered from my earlier comments that the Insurance Bureau of Canada (“IBC”) is a proper party as an intervener in this proceeding and that they have something to add to the proceeding and the court will be better informed by their participation. [2] I do not want to place undue restrictions upon their participation but note they have already agreed that they have a limited interest in this proceeding confined to the constitutional issues that arise on the claim. [3] As well, the court itself will control its own process with respect to any abuse that could arise by their participation. Following Arrow Construction Products Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) 1996 CarswellNS 79 I have considered the consequences of IBC's possible intervention in this proceeding. In considering an application to intervene, appellate courts will consider: (1) whether the intervention will unduly delay the proceedings; (2) possible prejudice to the parties if intervention is granted; (3) whether the intervention will widen the lis between the parties; (4) the extent to which the position of the intervener is already represented and protected by one of the parties; and (5) whether the intervention will transform the court into a political arena. As a matter of discretion, the court is not bound by any of these factors in determining an application for intervention but must balance these factors against the convenience, efficiency and social purpose of moving the case forward with only the persons directly involved to this lis. [footnotes omitted] [4] I find that IBC's participation in this proceeding will not result in any inconvenience or undue delay and will advance the cause before the court. [5] They will not be limited to participation on the main proceeding only. [6] Essentially I am in agreement with the terms of the draft order presented by Mr. Galway. It captures the proposed limitation on the IBC intervention and is reasonable. They should have the right to participate in interlocutory motions dealing the constitutional issues raised by the applicants. I would not limit their right to cross-examination at this juncture. With respect to the ultra vires issue as it relates to constitutional matters, they will have the right to make their written submissions and at the discretion of the court, make oral submissions. I also believe that Clause 6 deals reasonably with the costs issue with the intent that your clients Mr. Mason, should not be liable for additional costs in connection with IBC's intervention in this proceeding. [7] As I have said, the court will supervise its own process. The trial judge will conduct the proceeding as he or she sees fit and may place further restrictions on the intervener. [8] The order that has been presented by Mr. Galway is acceptable to the court. It is not appropriate for Aviva to have separate intervener status as they will be represented by IBC's intervention. They would have nothing significant to add. IBC will represent all insurers in the industry. [9] I have taken the liberty to edit the proposed draft order I am now prepared to issue. Justice M. Heather Robertson