Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-03-31
Docket: M55865 (COA-24-CV-0858)
Judge: Grant Huscroft (Motion Judge)

Between

Ruben Stolove by his litigation guardians Micha Stolove and Linda Hindrea, Micha Stolove, Linda Hindrea, Michael Burton Alexander, Barron Jenner, Christopher Ducharme, Coleby Benjamin by his litigation guardian Kelly Draper and Kelly Draper
Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Carol Lambie, Rob Desroches, Linda Adams and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario
Defendants (Respondents)

Joel P. Rochon, Golnaz Nayerahmadi and Pritpal Mann, for the appellants
Elizabeth Bowker, Deborah Berlach, Christian Breukelman, Dakota Forster, Grace Murdoch, Paul Morrison and Kathryn M. Frelick, for the respondents Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, Carol Lambie, Rob Desroches and Linda Adams
Vanessa Glasser, Ram Rammaya, Michael Saad, Daniel Huffaker and Maia Stevenson, for the respondent His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario
Anita Szigeti, for the proposed intervener the Empowerment Council

Heard: in writing

Endorsement

[1] The Empowerment Council (“EC”) moves for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the order of Perell J. refusing to certify the appellants’ proposed class action against the respondents, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”), His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, Carol Lambie, Rob Desroches, and Linda Adams, and dismissing the claims against the individual defendants: Stolove v. Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, 2024 ONSC 3639.

[2] The proposed class members are or were “inpatients that have been confined and/or restrained at Waypoint since January 1, 2000”. They suffer from serious mental illnesses and are detained involuntarily at Waypoint under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7 or dispositions of the Ontario Review Board.

[3] The motion is brought late in the day: the appeal is scheduled to be heard on April 22, 2025. The appellants support EC’s motion to intervene but have not filed any materials on the motion. The respondents oppose the motion and have filed a joint factum.

[4] The motion is brought pursuant to r. 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The principles governing the motion are not in dispute. The court considers:

(1) The nature of the case;
(2) The issues which arise; and
(3) The likelihood that the proposed intervener will usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 74 O.R. (3d) 164 (C.A.), at p. 167.

In addition, a proposed intervener in a constitutional case is usually required to demonstrate at least one of the following criteria:

(1) It has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings;
(2) It has an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties; or
(3) It is a well-recognized group with a special expertise and a broadly identifiable membership base.

*Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 669, 98 O.R. (3d) 792, at para. 2*.

[5] I accept that EC has expertise and a genuine interest in the issues relevant to this appeal. It is a recognized public interest organization that advocates on behalf of individuals with mental health issues and addictions and has experience as an intervener in prior proceedings. However, it does not follow that EC should be granted intervener status on this account. The key consideration is whether EC will usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

[6] I am not satisfied that it will. This is an appeal from a denial of class action certification. EC’s proposed factum addresses “systemic barriers to access to justice common to psychiatric inpatients, particularly at Waypoint and when subject to lengthy periods of seclusion and restraint.” That issue, or variations of it, has been dealt with in considerable detail throughout the litigation.

[7] EC submits that it “has ensured that its submissions are not duplicative”. I do not agree. I agree with the respondents that EC’s proposed submissions are in large part duplicative of the appellants’ submissions on the relevant issues.

[8] Accordingly, the motion is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”