Andrea Gatti

The Steering Committee, an unincorporated group of physicians and scientists, sought to intervene in a joint hearing of motions concerning the allocation of actuarially unallocated funds from the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement.

The Committee proposed allocating funds to its "National HCV Initiative," which aimed to benefit all Canadians with HCV, not just class members.

The court dismissed the intervention request, finding that the Steering Committee was a stranger to both the Settlement Agreement and the underlying litigation, lacking privity of contract or any substantive right to participate in the administration of the settlement.

Justice for Children and Youth brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a series of appeals brought by the Children's Lawyer.

The appeals concerned a Superior Court judge's order, made under parens patriae jurisdiction, requiring the Children's Lawyer to represent children in matrimonial litigation due to exigent circumstances.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion to intervene, finding that the proposed intervener could provide useful assistance on the impact of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, especially since no party was responding to the appeals.

The appellants, two young children born in Sri Lanka to a Canadian citizen father, came to Ontario to live with him.

They were subjected to a three-month waiting period for OHIP coverage, during which one child incurred $66,000 in medical bills.

They appealed the imposition of the waiting period, arguing it discriminated against them on the basis of place of origin and family status, as exemptions existed for newborns born in Ontario and adopted children.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no discrimination based on place of origin because the children were not newborns when they arrived.

While the court found a distinction based on family status, it held that biological children are not a disadvantaged group compared to adopted children, and therefore the exclusion did not violate section 15(1) of the Charter or the Human Rights Code.