Canada: Intervening In The ‘Interests Of Justice' In The Federal Courts

Last Updated: December 7 2016
Article by Jacob R.W. Damstra


In a recent article, Part One of this series, I described the "(Nearly) New Approach" to interventions in Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal proceedings. The recap, despite a recent attempt by Stratas J.A. to modernize the test for leave to intervene (Pictou Landing), the test for leave to intervene in the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal remains the six factor test set in 1989 (Rothmans, Benson & Hedges). The criteria that the court will consider are: (1) Is the proposed intervenor directly affected by the outcome? (2) Does there exist a justiciable issue and a veritable public interest? (3) Is there an apparent lack of any other reasonable or efficient means to submit the question to the Court? (4) Is the position of the proposed intervenor adequately defended by one of the parties to the case? (5) Are the interests of justice better served by the intervention of the proposed third party? (6) Can the Court hear and decide the cause on its merits without the proposed intervenor?

This article explores how these factors have been interpreted and the importance of the "interests of justice" for interventions at the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal.


It is clear from the jurisprudence that these factors are neither cumulative nor exhaustive. The criteria are meant to be applied flexibly to account for the different factors at play in different interventions (Sport Maska). Thus, it is not necessary for a proposed intervenor to satisfy each criteria, depending on the circumstances. However, courts have placed much emphasis on the "interests of justice" factor and the requirement in Rule 109(2) that the proposed intervenor must demonstrate how its "participation will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding." The Federal Court of Appeal has held that it is "undeniable" that "the salient question is whether the intervenor will bring further, different and valuable insights and perspectives that will assist the Court in determining the matter."

The Rules

Rule 109 of the Federal Courts Rules, Can. Reg. 98-106, sets out the authority to grant leave to intervene in a Federal Court proceeding:

109(1) Leave to intervene
The Court may, on motion, grant leave to any person to intervene in a proceeding.

109(2) Contents of notice of motion
Notice of a motion under subsection (1) shall

(a) set out the full name and address of the proposed intervener and of any solicitor acting for the proposed intervener; and

(b) describe how the proposed intervener wishes to participate in the proceeding and how that participation will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding.

109(3) Directions
In granting a motion under subsection (1), the Court shall give directions regarding

(a) the service of documents; and

(b) the role of the intervener, including costs, rights of appeal and any other matters relating to the procedure to be followed by the intervener.

Interventions in the 'public interest'

In setting out the six Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors, Rouleau J. was specifically considering when the Court should grant standing and allow the full participation of an intervener in a "public interest" debate: at para. 12.

The six factors were applied ubiquitously by the Trial Division and the Appeal Court1 for the next two decades without revision, in cases of "public interest" debates, as considered by Rouleau J., as well as in other cases where leave to intervene is sought on other grounds.2

Interpretation of the Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors

Beginning from the outset with Rouleau J.'s decision in Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, courts have recognized that these factors are neither exhaustive nor essential to allow an intervention. The Federal Court of Appeal has reaffirmed numerous times that it is not necessary to meet all six factors in order to justify an intervention.3 In Globalive, the court held that a genuine interest beyond a jurisprudential one and a demonstration that the proposed intervenor could assist the court were sufficient to overcome deficiencies in the other factors. Most recently, in Sport Maska, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed, at para. 41, "the Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors are not meant to be exhaustive" and "they allow the Court, in any given case, to ascribe the weight that the Court wishes to give to any individual factor." On that authority, it is also possible for a proposed intervenor to go beyond the Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors, to identify other facets which support their application for intervention. However, the court in Sport Maska indicated that the flexibility of Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors will negate the need to go beyond them.

What does seem to be clear from the jurisprudence is that "the salient question is whether the intervenor will bring further, different and valuable insights and perspectives that will assist the Court in determining the matter."4 The court in Sport Maska, at para. 40, accepted this observation of Stratas J.A. in Pictou Landing as "undeniable".

After setting out the Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors, the Federal Court of Appeal in C.U.P.E. emphasized the importance of meeting the requirement of rule 109(2). It is incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate "how the proposed intervention '... will assist the determination of a factual or legal issue related to the proceeding'."5 A proposed intervenor must:

Show in its application for leave what it would bring to the debate over and beyond what was already available to the Court through the parties. Specifically, it had to demonstrate how its expertise would be of assistance in the determination of the issues placed before the Court by the parties.6

It is crucial for the applicant to go beyond mere assertion and actually demonstrate to the court how it will assist.7 To establish this, an applicant would be prudent to: identify one or more specific controlling ideas on which the case will turn, offer the submissions it will make on the controlling ideas, ensure that its submissions will not need to go beyond the evidentiary record, and distinguish its submissions from those of others already before the Court.8 Failure to do so may undermine an application for leave to appeal even where most or all of the other factors are met.

Justice Stratas also noted, sitting as a single motions judge, that the overall fairness of the intervention is a factor to be considered when determining the interests of justice. In Gitxaala Nation v. R., 2015 FCA 73, at paras. 22-23, Stratas J.A. considered the impact of allowing an intervention that might stack the deck against the respondents in the case. He held at para. 23:

These concerns are well-founded. An aspect of overall fairness in the litigation process is the "equality of arms"... To the extent possible, no one side should be so numerous or dominant that its voices drown out the other side and prevent it from expressing itself adequately.

But, as discussed below, the court is also empowered to set the terms of the intervention to take into account the equality of arms and the overall fairness of the intervention, which Stratas J.A. did in Gitxaala Nation by restricting the length of written and oral argument the proposed intervenor was entitled to make.

A proposed intervenor should, therefore, be prepared to justify its intervention in terms of the overall fairness of its participation in the litigation.

Insufficient for Intervention

The courts have also espoused and repeated a number of factors which would be insufficient to meet the test for leave to intervene. Foremost among these comments is that an interest in the outcome of the litigation that is purely jurisprudential is insufficient to justify intervention.9

The courts have also been loath to allow intervention for piggybacking purposes. In Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 267, the Court of Appeal stated that an intervention will not be allowed to allow an intervenor to merely support position of one party by repeating that party's arguments in the intervenor's own words. Similarly, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Siemens Enterprise Communications Inc., 2011 FCA 250, the Court of Appeal commented that Rule 109 was "not to be used in order to replace a respondent by an intervener".

Additionally, the Court of Appeal has held that where a potential intervenor will suffer no potential prejudice by not participating because one of the parties owes them a duty to protect their interests, leave may not be granted.10

Note that this brief description is not exhaustive of the cautions which the courts have given in relation to interventions. They are included to provide further guidance on how best to frame an application for intervention. Most particularly, where the dominant interest in intervening might actually be jurisprudential, or to support the arguments of one of the parties (i.e. an individual landowner or citizen challenging environmental contamination or legislation), it is crucial to bring some other arguments to bear on the application for leave to intervene.

Miscellaneous Points on Practice and Procedure

In addition to guidance on the test for leave to intervene and the interpretation and application of the Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors, the courts have issued a handful of procedural and practice directions regarding interventions. In no particular order, this section briefly describes these directions.

An intervenor is bound by terms of intervention and no right to appeal unless ordered or leave granted,11 but the court is not obliged to give complete set of instructions governing the intervenor's role at the time of intervention.12 Still, an intervenor's pleadings may be struck if they go beyond what is allowed by the court's order granting leave to intervene.13

Additionally, any intervenors must take the record as they find it14 and may not litigate new issues.15 But, consistent with the essential requirement that a proposed intervenor assist the court, the intervenor must add some legal or factual argument on the basis of that record.16 And, in certain circumstances, a public interest intervenor can raise related issues of public interest which naturally arises on the record even if they have not been raised by the parties.17

In relation to appeals, the Federal Court of Appeal has commented that where leave to intervene is granted at trial, leave should also be granted on appeal, barring a fundamental error in the decision granting leave, some material change in the issues on appeal, or important new facts bearing on the intervention.18 On appeal, an intervenor must take the case as they find it and cannot, to the prejudice of the parties, argue a new issue that requires the introduction of new evidence.19 Along those lines, leave will not be granted for the purpose of arguing an issue not raised at trial or proposed by the parties to be raised on appeal.20

Moreover, the court has indicated on multiple occasions that a proposed intervenor has a duty to make its motion to intervene as early as possible in order to minimize the disruption in the proceedings in which it seeks to participate.21 Where a potential intervenor could have sought leave to intervene in proceedings below and intends to range far from issues raised by the parties, leave will not be granted.22


1. But see Federation of Saskatchewan Indians v. Canada (A.G.), 2002 FCT 1001 where the court held at para. 10:

the test for allowing intervener standing for argument at the appellate level is necessarily different from that which is used at trial; trials must remain manageable and the parties must be able to define the issues and the evidence on which they will be decided. An appellate court on the other hand deals with a pre-established record that is not normally subject to change. And an appellate court, while benefiting from the different viewpoints expressed by interveners, is far better equipped to limit and control the length and nature of their interventions.

This approach does not appear to have been picked up in subsequent case law.

2. For example, to protect a private interest of the proposed intervenor.

3. See e.g., Canadian Pacific Railway v. Boutique Jacob Inc., 2006 FCA 426, at paras. 19-21; Globalive Wireless Management Corp. v. Public Mobile Inc., 2011 FCA 119.

4. Pictou Landing, at para. 9.

5. C.U.P.E. v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (Fed. C.A.), at para. 9.

6. Ibid, at para. 12.

7. Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. Canada (National Energy Board), 2013 FCA 236.

8. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ishaq, 2015 FCA 151.

9. C.U.P.E., at para. 11; Amnesty International Canada v. Canada (Chief of Defense Staff for Canadian Forces, 2008 FCA 257; Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2009 FCA 186; R. v. Boulton, [1976] 1 F.C. 252 (C.A.); Tioxide Canada Inc. v. R. (1994), 174 N.R. 212 (Fed. C.A.).

10. Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs & Northern Development) (1998), 234 N.R. 83 (Fed. C.A.).

11. Merck Frosst Can. Inc. v. Canada (Min. of National Health & Welfare) (1997), 72 C.P.R. (3d) 187 (Fed. C.A.); Edmonton Friends of the North Environmental Society v. Canada (Min. of Western Economic Diversification), [1991] 1 F.C. 416 (C.A.).

12. Sawridge Band v. Canada, 2001 FCA 341.

13. Misquadis v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCA 370.

14. Edmonton Friends of the North Environmental Society, at paras. 8, 12.

15. Maurice v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs & Northern Development) (2000), 183 F.T.R. 45 (T.D.).

16. Canada (Attorney General) v. P.I.P.S.C., 2010 FCA 217.

17. Benoit v. Canada, 2001 FCA 71; Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2001 FCA 108.

18. Canada (Attorney General) v. Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board, 2012 FCA 114.

19. Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2004 FCA 66.

20. International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries & Oceans), [1988] 3 F.C. 590 (C.A.); but see Benoit v. Canada.

21. Siemens; ViiV Healthcare ULC v. Teva Canada Ltd., 2015 FCA 33.

22. Imperial Oil.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.