PRACTICE |
Parties |
Intervention |
Maurice v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)
T-1057-96
Reed J.
17/2/00
6 pp.
Motion by Métis National Council to be added as intervener--Action seeking declarations defendants breached constitutional, other obligations owed to plaintiffs--Lesser amount of compensation paid to Métis compared to other Aboriginal persons (status Indians) for displacement from hunting, fishing, trapping in northern Saskatchewan to allow for weapons range focus of claim--Applicant seeking intervener status because (1) decision will likely affect other Métis; and (2) has special knowledge, expertise with respect to Métis claims that it considers will assist Court in litigation--Defendants opposing application for intervener status--Arguing applicant's interest in case similar to that said to be insufficient to justify intervener status in Tioxide Canada Inc. v. Canada (1994), 174 N.R. 212 (F.C.A.) and R. v. Bolton, [1976] 1 F.C. 252 (C.A.)--In those cases individuals sought to intervene because had claims pending of similar nature, and legal rules established in plaintiffs' cases would set precedents that would affect litigation being pursued by prospective interveners (referred to as "jurisprudential" interest in Tioxide)--While applicant not having direct interest in outcome of present litigation, individuals it represents do, and those interests likely to be substantial--Applicant's interest stronger than mere jurisprudential interest, although that exists as well--Interests of individuals applicant seeking to protect grounded in same fact situation as those of plaintiffs, thus meeting first two parts of test set out in Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. Memorial University of Newfoundland (1997), 135 F.T.R. 211 (F.C.T.D.)--Defendants arguing applicant will not offer different perspective to litigation, or alternatively applicant as intervener will broaden scope of litigation so that becomes unwieldy, massive Aboriginal rights claim--Intervener may not litigate new issues: Yale Indian Band v. Aitchelitz Indian Band (1998), 151 F.T.R. 36 (F.C.T.D.)--Court confident applicant will not seek to expand parameters of claim, which in any event may not do--While argument intervener may not contribute evidence different from what plaintiff intending to adduce may be correct, not meaning intervener's perspective on that evidence not different--In Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1990] 1 F.C. 90, C.A. articulated relevant approach: to intervene in public interest litigation organization must be genuinely interested in issues raised by action and possess special knowledge, expertise related to issues raised--Applicant not public interest group--Represents individuals who have more direct interest in litigation than members of such groups--Present litigation raising Charter issues--Applicant not standing in less favourable position as prospective intervener than public interest groups granted standing in Rothmans, Workers' Compensation cases--Applicant bringing sufficiently different perspective to litigation from that of plaintiffs to entitle it to intervener status, and involvement in litigation would assist Court in determination of dispute between parties--Intervener status granted.