Canada Case Law

Mansfield v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Newfoundland and Labrador

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

Seal's application for security for costs was dismissed because he failed to demonstrate Mansfield would be unable to pay his costs on appeal and Mansfield showed the appeal was reasonably or fairly apparent to have merit; additionally, the court noted that intervenor costs are not routinely awarded and must be justified, so ordering security was not warranted.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Intervention
• Costs of intervenor
• Appellate review of discretionary orders
• Stay of costs

Read case analysis

Henry v. A.B.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to intervene was granted because both BWSS and CDAS demonstrated a public interest in the specific issue of abuse of process as it relates to relitigation of findings from prior criminal proceedings, each has a representative base and a unique, non-duplicative perspective that will assist the court, and neither seeks to expand the scope of the appeal; accordingly, intervention was permitted on limited terms (factum page limits and filing deadlines).

Source excerpt

• Abuse of process
• Relitigation of prior findings
• Intervention
• Sexual assault civil liability
• Identification evidence
• Similar fact evidence

Read case analysis

Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed a motion by Joss Covenoho to intervene in the Caruso appeal, finding the request untimely, duplicative, and unsupported.

• Intervention
• Scope of practice
• Division of powers
• Judicial case management
• Timeliness and duplication
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

G.G. v. Ontario

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted intervention motions in a class-action appeal about the Ragoonanan principle, imposing tight limits on factums, reply rights, and oral argument.

• Class certification
• Intervention
• Ragoonanan principle
• Access to justice
• Public interest standing
• Stare decisis

Read case analysis

Opheim v. The King

Court

Tax Court of Canada

The Tax Court denied party status to the Hawreluk respondent in a lead-case motion, but allowed use of Hawreluk discovery for the motion under the implied undertaking rule.

• Lead case designation
• Intervention / leave to intervene
• Implied undertaking rule
• Case management (rule 146.1)
• Lead-case-designation
• Intervention

Read case analysis

Cycle Toronto v. Ontario (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted several motions to intervene in a Charter appeal about bicycle lanes, limiting each intervener to specific issues and set page and oral argument limits.

• Section 7 charter
• Positive vs negative rights
• Intervention as friend of the court
• Principles of fundamental justice
• Gross disproportionality
• Best interests of the child (uncrc)

Read case analysis

Baker v. Van Dolder’s Home Team Inc.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave for ISAC and PCLS to intervene as a coalition in this employment appeal about termination provisions and the ESA.

• Termination provisions
• Employment standards act remedial purpose
• Intervention (amicus)
• Bargaining power disparity
• Employment-law
• Civil-procedure

Read case analysis

Narejko v. Li

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to vary a chambers order, upheld special costs for abuse of process, and rejected fresh evidence, sealing, and reinstatement relief.

• Divorce
• Statutory stay
• Special costs
• Abuse of process
• Fresh evidence
• Reinstatement of appeal

Read case analysis

B.M. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Case management endorsement setting timelines for intervention motions and scheduling a two-day appeal in a proposed class proceeding involving Indigenous children and child welfare.

• Certification
• Intervention
• Over-representation of indigenous children
• Child welfare funding
• Access to services
• Case-management

Read case analysis

Thibodeau c. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The court denied intervention because the proposed interveners failed to demonstrate that their participation would be useful or offer a distinct expertise or perspective beyond what the Crown would present, their asserted interest was largely jurisprudential or speculative regarding potential advantage, and the publicity principle alone does not justify intervention where confidentiality and privilege issues remain to be decided on the merits; accordingly intervention under rule 109 was not warranted and costs were ordered against the interveners.

Source excerpt

• Intervention
• Confidentiality orders
• Privilege
• Publicity of court proceedings
• Rule 109

Read case analysis