Court File and Parties

CITATION: Trinity Western University v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2014 ONSC 6220

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 250/14

DATE: 20141027

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT)

RE: TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY and THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA

BEFORE: McCombs, Leitch and Swinton, JJ.

COUNSEL:

B. W. Bussey for the proposed intervenor, Canadian Council of Christian Charities

P. Horgan for the proposed intervenors, Catholic Civil Rights League and Faith and Freedom Alliance

G. P. Charette, proposed intervenor, in person

Jessica Mathewson, for Trinity Western University

HEARD at Toronto: October 24, 2014

Endorsement

[1] On these s. 21(5) motions, this court will only interfere with the decision of the motions judge if there has been an error in principle or a palpable and overriding error of fact.

[2] The decision whether to grant intervenor status is discretionary. The motions judge applied the correct legal principles from Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 ONCA 669, and Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990) 1990 6886 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (2d) 164 (C.A.). He considered the nature of the case, the extent to which the proposed intervenors could assist the court, the impact on the process if all the applicants were granted intervenor status, the expertise of the applicants and their membership base, the sincerity of their interests, and their proposed contributions.

[3] Two of the moving parties in their motions to vary argued that the motions judge erred in considering the balance between the competing positions of the main parties, the overlap in the proposed intervenors’ submissions, and the burden on the court process that would result if there were no limitation on the number of intervenors.

[4] We disagree. In our view, these considerations are consistent with the principles set out in A & P and applied in Bedford. These considerations are appropriate in the evaluation of intervenor applications. The motions judge was required to determine whether the proposed intervenors could assist the court when it determines the judicial review application between the immediate parties. Therefore there was no error made by the motions judge when, in exercising his discretion, he took into consideration the commonality of the perspectives of the proposed intervenors.

[5] With respect to Mr. Charette, we see no error in the analysis of the motions judge found in paragraph 50 of his reasons.

[6] In the result, the motions to vary are dismissed without costs.

McCOMBS J.

LEITCH J.

SWINTON J.

Date: October 27, 2014