A-736-83
Alberta Government Telephones (Appellant)
(Applicant)
v.
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunica
tions Commission, CNCP Telecommunications
and Attorney General of Canada (Respondents)
(Respondents)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow C.J., Pratte and Stone
JJ.—Toronto, November 10, 1983.
Practice — Intervention — Jurisdiction of Trial Division —
Appeal from order permitting intervention of Attorney General
— Authority of Trial Division to permit interventions flowing
from Court's jurisdiction to deal with subject matter of litiga
tion — Order properly made — Wording varied so that
Attorney General intervener rather than party respondent —
Appeal dismissed.
COUNSEL:
P. J. McIntyre for appellant (applicant).
D. J. Rennie for respondent (respondent)
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommuni
cations Commission.
M. H. Ryan for respondent (respondent)
CNCP Telecommunications.
E. A. Bowie, Q.C. for respondent (respondent)
Attorney General of Canada.
SOLICITORS:
Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer, Calgary, for
appellant (applicant).
D. J. Rennie, Department of Justice, Ottawa,
for respondent (respondent) Canadian Radio-
television and Telecommunications Commis
sion.
Law Department, Canadian Pacific Limited,
Montreal, for respondent (respondent) CNCP
Telecommunications.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent (respondent) Attorney General of
Canada.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
THURLOW C.J.: We are all of the opinion that
while there is no general rule respecting interven-
tions in proceedings in the Trial Division analo
gous to Rule 1101, which applies only to proceed
ings in the Court of Appeal, the Trial Division has
authority to permit interventions in appropriate
situations. This authority flows from the Court's
jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the
litigation. We are also of the opinion that the order
of the Trial Division in the present instance
[[1983] 2 F.C. 443], permitting the Attorney Gen
eral of Canada to intervene for the purposes set
out in the notice of motion and repeated in the
order, was properly made. We think, however, that
the wording of the order should be varied by
striking out the words "is added as a party
respondent to" in the first and second lines of the
order and substituting therefor the words "is
allowed to intervene in" and by changing the word
"present" in the fourth line thereof to the word
"prevent".
The order will be varied accordingly and the
appeal will be dismissed without costs.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.