Several proposed intervenors brought motions to vary a motions judge's decision denying them intervenor status in a judicial review application.
They argued the motions judge erred by considering the overlap in their proposed submissions and the burden on the court process.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motions, finding the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and made no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in exercising his discretion.
