Summary

David Ahenakew March 9, 2006 (2006)

“ The issue of whether an intervention will cause an injustice to the immediate parties, is a larger consideration when the application to intervene is at trial, as opposed to on appeal. On appeal, the court has the ability to limit interventions to those matters of public policy that arise with respect to the legislation under consideration. The perception of unfairness at the appeal level is also much reduced where the intervener is not attempting to lead new evidence that the party opposed to the intervention would have to contend with. ”
Source: Wikisource

David Ahenakew March 9, 2006 (2006)

“ In essence, my submission is that the interpretation of Section 319 (2) is not a matter uniquely suited to the Jewish Congress but is strictly a matter of law. In previous cases of intervention by the Canadian Jewish Congress, it was obvious that the public policy aspects of the Charter required their submissions to demonstrate what was demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society that was in respect of whether Section 319 (2) was a reasonable limit on freedom of expression. ”
Source: Wikisource

David Ahenakew March 9, 2006 (2006)

“ Rule 75 requires that a proposed intervener demonstrate the intervention is "for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court". The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in a number of decisions have stated that an interest in the result of the appeal will not of itself create a basis for granting an application to intervene. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature