Intervenors in Anti-SLAPP Proceedings

• Author: David A. Potts; Erin Stoik
• Pages: 452-455

452

 42

Intervenors in Anti-SLAPP Proceedings

A number of parties were granted intervenor status in the two Supreme

Court of Canada decisions involving the interpretation and application of

anti-SLAPP legislation. See Bent v Platnick, 2020 SCC 23 and 1704604 Ontario

Ltd v Pointes Protection Association, 2020 SCC 22.

In Ontario, interventions are governed by rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 and decisions of the Court of Appeal, such as

Authorson (Guardian o) v Canada (Attorney General), [2001] OJ No 2768, 147

OAC 355 per McMurtry CJO at paras 6–9:

[6] I am guided in the exercise of my discretion on this motion by the reasons

of Dubin C.J.O. in Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacif‌ic Co. of

Canada Ltd (1990), 1990 CanLII 6886 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (2d) 164 (C.A.) (“Peel”)

who stated the test to be applied on motions such as this, as follows, at p. 167:

Although much has been written as to the proper matters to be con-

sidered in determining whether an application for intervention should

be granted, in the end, in my opinion, the matters to be considered are

the nature of the case, the issues which arise and the likelihood of the

applicant being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of

the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties.

[7] In Peel, Chief Justice Dubin noted that in constitutional cases, including

cases decided under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there has

been a relaxation of the rules heretofore governing the disposition of motions

for leave to intervene. This approach ensures that the court will have the

benef‌it of various perspectives of the historical and sociological context, as

well as policy and other considerations that bear on the validity of legislation.

[8] In contrast, Ontario courts have interpreted Rule 13 more narrowly

in conventional, non-constitutional litigation. (See for example, Peixeiro v.