Intervention in Civil Matters

Prince Edward Island uses the same Rules as Ontario.  As a result decisions of PEI Courts have a broader application than they might otherwise have.  Vail & McIver v. WCB(PEI) & AG(PEI), 2011 PECA 17 is a useful decision relating to intervention in civil matters.  The Court holds:

 

 

[10]           The criteria for consideration of leave to intervene as an added party is stated in Rule 13.01 as follows:

 

LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS ADDED PARTY

 

13.01      (1)           Where a person who is not a party to a proceeding claims,

 

(a)           an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding;

 

(b)           that he or she may be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding; or

 

(c)           that there exists between him or her and one or more of the parties to the proceeding a question of law or fact in common with one or more of the questions in issue in the proceeding, the person may move for leave to intervene as an added party.

 

(2)          On the motion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding and the court may add the person as a party to the proceeding and may make such order for pleadings and discovery as is just.

 

Mr. Richard claims that he satisfies each of the criterion (a), (b) and (c).  The Board responds that he satisfies none of the listed criteria and submits that his motion should be dismissed.

 

[11]           The appellants and the proposed intervenor have in common that they were injured in workplace accidents in the 1970s and 1980s, made claims and had their compensation determined under the provisions and methodology of the old Act, and have claimed, so far unsuccessfully, that the Board is obliged to reconsider their claims, and that their s.7 and s.15 Charter rights are violated.

 

…

[14]           In exercising the discretion whether to grant leave, all the circumstances need to be considered.  The discretion will not ordinarily be exercised in favor of granting leave to an applicant just because the applicant has a similar case: Reference re Workers' Compensation Act 1983 (Nfld.), 1989 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 335, at ¶10.  Our jurisprudence advises a fairly relaxed approach toward granting intervention: Simmonds v. Law Society of Prince Edward Island, 1995 CanLII 3418 (PE SCAD), [1995] 125 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 220 (PEICA); and liberal construction: Trempe v. Reybroek,2002 CanLII 49410 (ON SC), [2002] 57 O.R. (3d) 786 (Ont.Sup.Ct.); M. v. H. 1994 CanLII 7324 (ON SC), [1994] 20 O.R. (3d) 70 (Ont.Ct.Gen.Div.); especially so in constitutional cases because of the potential great impact on others who are not immediate parties to the proceedings: Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd., reflex, [1990] 74 O.R. (2^nd) 164.