Reema Khawja

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) appealed a Superior Court decision denying its leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application challenging the constitutionality of municipal by-laws related to encampments.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding that an order denying leave to intervene as a friend of the court is an interlocutory order, not a final order, and therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeal under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court distinguished between party interventions (which may be final orders) and friend of the court interventions (which are interlocutory).

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in a pending motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court decision dismissing a Charter challenge to Ontario's sex education curriculum directive.

The OHRC argued it would make unique contributions by addressing the public interest dimension and alleged errors in the Divisional Court's discrimination analysis.

The motion judge dismissed the OHRC's request for intervener status on the motion for leave to appeal, finding that such interventions should be rare and extraordinary, and that the applicants were already capable of advancing these arguments.

The motion judge adjourned the OHRC's request for intervener status on any subsequent appeal.