A 2012 decision of Master Dash of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Papasotiriou v. Manufacturer’s Life Insurance Co., provides guidance on obtaining intervenor status under Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In this case, the plaintiff’s sister and mother sought leave from the Court to intervene as added parties in two actions pursuant to Rule 13.01, which states:

13.01 (1) A person who is not a party to a proceeding may move for leave to intervene as an added party if the person claims,

(a) an interest in the subject matter of the proceeding;
(b) that the person may be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding; or
(c) that there exists between the person and one or more of the parties to the proceeding a question of law or fact in common with one or more of the questions in issue in the proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.01 (1).

(2) On the motion, the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding and the court may add the person as a party to the proceeding and may make such order as is just. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 13.01 (2).

Part 1 of the Test for Intervenor Status

In his decision, Master Dash clarified that the three subsections under subrule 13.01(1) (a, b and c) are to be read disjunctively. In other words, a party to a proceeding is only required to meet one of the three criteria in order to satisfy the first part of the test for intervenor status.

In considering whether one of the persons seeking to intervene in this case satisfied the first part of the test in accordance with subrules 13.01(1)(a) and (b), Master Dash stated that in order to show that the party has an interest in the proceedings, a demonstration that she is “reasonably asserting” an interest in the subject matter of the case or that she “reasonably may” be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding would suffice.¹

The two individuals claiming intervenor status in this case claimed that in addition to one of the individual’s private financial interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, both have a broader public interest in the subject matter of the case, as a mother and sister of a murdered individual. Master Dash found that their status as family members of the deceased did not “elevate their participation beyond that of persons with a private and direct financial interest in the outcome.”³ Because the mother and daughter did not represent the interests of a particular segment of the general public who would be affected by the litigation in question, they were not found to meet the model of public interest intervenors.³

Part 2 of the Test for Intervenor Status

Once a party has satisfied one of the three subsections under Rule 13.01(1), the Court will then consider the second part of the test, which requires that the Court assess whether allowing a party to intervene would unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties to the proceeding. (13.01(2)).

Further Clarification

In his decision, Master Dash also states that the Test on Intervention does not require a determination of the substantive issues of the case.

Conclusion

Claiming intervenor status is a means by which an individual with an interest in a proceeding but no standing as a party to that proceeding may nevertheless be enabled to assert his or her interests in the litigation. In certain cases, allowing an individual to intervene can also allow for a consolidation of proceedings and, thereby, render the court process more effective.

—
1. 2012 ONSC 6473, 2012 CarswellOnt 15519 at para 28(WL).
2. Ibid. at para 42.
3. Ibid.