Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-577519 DATE: 20210409

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

FAIR CHANGE COMMUNITY CLINIC Applicant

– and –

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent

Counsel: Nicolas M. Rouleau, for the Applicant Zachary Green and Emily Bala, for the Respondent Frank Addario, for the Proposed Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Claire Millgate, Mary Birdsell and Jane Stewart, for the Proposed Intervener, Justice for Children and Youth Christa Big Canoe and Douglas Varrette, for the Proposed Intervener, Aboriginal Legal Services Reema Khawja and Nika Farahani, for the Proposed Intervener, Ontario Human Rights Commission Nabila F. Qureshi and Anu Bakshi, for the Proposed Intervener, Income Security Advocacy Centre

HEARD: In writing during the week of March 24, 2021

Reasons for Decision

papageorgiou j.

Nature of the Case

[1] Fair Change Community Clinic ("Fair Change") was founded in 2008 for the purpose of providing free legal representation to people who were homeless or in precarious living and/or financial situations, and who were facing charges under the Safe Streets Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 8 (the "SSA").

[2] The SSA prohibits individuals from asking for monetary help in manners that were deemed to be "aggressive", and from persons whom they deemed to be members of "captive" audiences. At the time, the main targets of SSA were persons engaged in "squeegeeing", a form of panhandling in which a person solicits alms in exchange for cleaning an automobile windshield with a "squeegee". The SSA creates offences whereby persons who contravene it are guilty of an offence and are liable on a first conviction to a fine of not more than $500 and on each subsequent conviction, to a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

[3] In 2017, Fair Change brought an application for various declarations that ss. 2, 3 and 5 of the SSA violate the freedoms contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter"), in particular sections 2(b), 7, 11(d), 12, and 15(1), that the violations cannot be justified as reasonable limits pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter and that as such are no force or effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

[4] Fair Change says that the practical effect of the SSA is to render it illegal for individuals to ask for alms in many public spaces, particularly in the public spaces where help is most likely to be received. The challenged provisions severely limit the ability of these individuals to obtain basic amenities or necessities. Fair Changes argues that neither fines nor jail time are an effective deterrent and in virtually all cases, persons seeking alms cannot pay the fines, so the debt accumulates and restricts their ability to obtain a driver's license, housing, employment and/or a favourable credit rating. During prison terms of longer than 30 days, any social assistance is cut off, and upon release the person is more disadvantaged and destitute than before. This causes psychological damage and, in some cases, physical harm.

[5] Fair Change says that since the enactment of the SSA, thousands of panhandlers have been convicted of violating the SSA for simply engaging in the seeking of alms in ways that have been traditionally regarded as very acceptable. Over the past eight years, Fair Change has represented hundreds of clients facing charges under the SSA and has successfully appealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of unpaid SSA fines. Almost all of its clients have experienced homelessness and a significant percentage of them are people who have mental disabilities. Almost all rely on some form of social assistance.

[6] Fair Change's application has not yet been heard.

[7] It is important to note that in 2001 there was a challenge to the SSA commenced in a case called R v. Banks (2001), 2001 CanLII 38740 (ON SC), [2001] 55 O.R. (3d) 374 (Ont. C.J.), aff'd (2005) 2005 CanLII 605 (ON SC), 248 D.L.R. (4th) 118 (Ont. S.C.), aff'd 2007 ONCA 19, 84 O.R. (3d) 1 (Ont. C.A.) ("Banks"). That challenge was unsuccessful.

[8] The Court did find that there had been breaches of the Charter but that they could be justified as reasonable limits pursuant to s. 1. Fair Change says that the Banks decision was limited by and to the circumstances of the individual defendants and much of the case focused on squeegeeing. Fair Change asserts that the present application is different from Banks because it is a challenge to almost the entire SSA and because it is based on different legal arguments. As well, there were amendments to the SSA in 2005, and interpretations of relevant sections of the Charter have changed substantially since Banks. Fair Change asserts that since Banks there has been a fundamental shift in the parameters of the debate as a result of the changed circumstances and social context, significant new evidence about the effects of the SSA that was not available at the time Banks was argued, and material developments in the relevant law which justifies a re-examination of the entire SSA, including aspects where the present application overlaps with Banks.

[9] Fair Change claims that it has public interest standing. It says that most of those who are affected by the SSA suffer profound disadvantages that make it very difficult for them to assert their rights, either legally or politically. It says that this application is an effective means of bringing these issues to court and is an economical use of judicial resources. Because of its years of extensive work with panhandlers, Fair Change can provide the Court with a broader understanding of the SSA, the interplay between the provisions of the SSA, and the cumulative impact of charges on the lives of panhandlers than could individual defendants defending against their discrete charges one at a time.

[10] The following five entities have brought motions to intervene in this proceeding:

a. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (the "OHRC");

b. Aboriginal Legal Services Legal Clinic ("ALS");

c. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association ("CCLA");

d. The Income Security Advocacy Centre (the "Centre"); and

e. Justice for Children and Youth ("JFCY").

[11] The motion is consented to by Fair Change and unopposed by the respondent to Fair Change's application, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

[12] For the reasons that follow, I am granting all of the motions.

Rule 13.02

[13] Rule 13.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 permits an organization to seek leave to intervene in a proceeding as a friend of the court "for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court by way of argument."

[14] In Charter and other public interest cases such as this Application, courts have recognized the importance of hearing from a broader number of parties and have applied the test for intervention more flexibly: Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (1990), 1990 CanLII 6886 (ON CA), 74 O.R. (2d) 164 (Ont. C.A.) ("Peel").

[15] Overlap in the positions of the proposed intervenor and a party to the proceedings is not a ground for the denial of a leave to intervene. It is still open to a proposed intervenor, whose position "generally aligns" with that of a party, to show that it will make a useful contribution: Choc v. Hudbay Minerals Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 998, at para. 11; Oakwell Engineering Limited v. Enernorth Industries Inc., 2006 CanLII 60327 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 9; Childs v. Desormeaux (2003), 2003 CanLII 47870 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (3d) 385 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 16; Peel; P.S. v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 160, at paras. 11-13.

[16] Courts will grant leave to intervene where the moving party meets at least one of the following criteria:

a. The intervenor is a well-recognized group with a special expertise and with a broad identifiable membership base;

b. The intervenor has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings; or

c. The intervenor has an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties.

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Dieleman et al. (1993), 1993 CanLII 5478 (ON SC), 16 O.R. (3d) 32 (Ont. Gen. Div.); followed in Bedford v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 669, 98 O.R. (3d) 792. See also Halpern v. Toronto (City) Clerk (2000), 2000 CanLII 29029 (ON SCDC), 51 O.R. (3d) 742 (Ont. Div. Ct.).

The Ontario Human Rights Commission

Well Recognized Group with Special Expertise

[17] The OHRC is a well-recognized public body. It has unique expertise as it is statutorily mandated, under the quasi-constitutional Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19 (the "Code"), to protect human rights in Ontario. It has been doing so for nearly 60 years.

[18] The OHRC has had a leading role in shaping human rights and Charter discrimination law in Canada. It has been granted leave to intervene in numerous matters before tribunal and courts. It has a long history of, and considerable expertise in engaging in litigation, public inquiries, public advocacy and advice to government related to poverty, Indigenous rights, mental health disabilities and addictions, and the criminal justice system.

Real and Substantial Interest

[19] The OHRC has a significant interest in the subject matter of this proceeding. The OHRC has a history of advocating for the protection of the rights of poor people in conformity with the Code, Charter and international law. The Court's decision will have a significant impact on the OHRC's work advancing the rights of Code-protected groups and could affect the adjudication of human rights claims in Ontario, particularly those related to poverty, Indigenous reconciliation, mental health and addiction disabilities and criminal justice issues. This matter raises issues of significant public importance and directly engages the OHRC's public interest human rights mandate. The outcome of this proceeding will have an impact on the OHRC's policy, litigation and inquiry work on disability discrimination and three out of four of the OHRC's Strategic Priority areas – poverty, criminal justice and Indigenous reconciliation.

Important and Distinct Perspective

[20] As well, it will be able to provide an important and distinct perspective. The OHRC represents the interests of all Ontarians whose rights may be affected by the outcome of this matter. The OHRC's special knowledge and unique mandate allow it to place the issues in a different perspective from that of the Applicant or other intervenors.

[21] The central focus of the OHRC's arguments, if permitted to intervene, will be related to its expertise in equality and its animating principle, human dignity. The OHRC's submissions will provide the relevant context for analyzing the Charter claims by arguing that a) the Charter rights at issue should be interpreted in a manner consistent with binding international law; b) an equality rights lens must be used as a contextual factor when considering all of the alleged Charter breaches; c) the impugned provisions of the SSA breach s. 15 of the Charter; and d) any Charter breach found cannot be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

[22] In my view, the OHRC's intervention in this proceeding meets all three criteria for intervention.

Aboriginal Legal Services

Well Recognized Group with Special Expertise

[23] ALS is a non-profit organization incorporated to assist Indigenous people to gain access to, and control over justice-related issues which affect them.

[24] ALS is a well-recognized group with a special expertise and with a broad identifiable membership base. It has appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada as an intervenor in 25 cases in which systemic issues affecting Indigenous peoples were addressed. It has also appeared before the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice as an intervenor presenting Indigenous perspectives in 19 cases.

Real and Substantial Interest

[25] ALS has a significant interest in the subject matter of this proceeding because those experiencing homelessness are disproportionately Indigenous and Indigenous people who panhandle are more likely to be charged using the SSA.

Important and Distinct Perspective

[26] ALS will also be able to provide an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties.

[27] ALS will focus on ss. 15 and 7 of the Charter. It will argue that the words used in ss. 2 and 3 of the SSA result in criminalization of the intersection between colonial legacies and negative stereotypes about Indigenous people. The SSA focusses on behaviour, namely panhandling, that is disproportionately undertaken by Indigenous people as a result of the continued effects of colonization and then invites a view of that behaviour that is affected by prejudice.

[28] It will argue that the consequences of colonial policies, such as displacement from land, exclusion of women and their children from reserves through the "marrying-out" rules in the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, residential schools, and under-funding of education, have all led to an over-representation of Indigenous people as persons who experience homelessness, poverty, addiction and trauma-related mental illness.

[29] ALS will argue that the vague and subjective nature of the words "aggressive" and "intoxicated" in the SSA run parallel with pervasive negative stereotypes about Indigenous peoples. The cycle of arresting Indigenous people who experience homelessness, convicting them, imposing fines they are unable to pay, then arresting, convicting and ordering more fines imposes a burden and further exacerbates disadvantage.

[30] Further, Indigenous offenders start from a place of substantive inequality in the criminal justice system, which includes their arrest, prosecution, and conviction under the SSA. One way to address that inequality is the consideration of the unique background factors which may have played a part in bringing the Indigenous offender before the courts. These "Gladue factors" have been held to extend beyond the sentencing under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 and apply in sentencing under the SSA. But the structure and operation of the SSA and the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33 means that almost no one charged under the SSA appears in court. The result is that there is no opportunity for a Crown or Justice of the Peace to learn about the Indigenous person they are prosecuting or convicting and sentencing or consider alternatives that might be available.

[31] In my view, the ALS's intervention in this proceeding meets all three criteria for intervention.

Justice for Children and Youth

Well Recognized Group with Special Expertise

[32] JFCY is a well-recognized group with a special expertise and with a broad identifiable membership base.

[33] JFCY is the operating arm of the Canadian Foundation for Children Youth and the Law, which was incorporated in the Province of Ontario in 1978, of the purpose of promoting the rights and legal interests of children and youth in Canada. JFCY provides legal services, including direct legal representation exclusively to children and young people across a range of legal subjects and in a variety of contexts. JFCY has a long-standing history of educating both professionals and the public about the rights of young people regarding a broad spectrum of legal issues, including the harsh realities facing homeless, street-involved, and unstably housed young people in Canada.

[34] JFCY conducts test case litigation on behalf of children and youth and is regularly consulted by government, agencies, and counsel from across the country, and internationally, in respect of youth issues and where the rights and interests of children and young people are engaged, notably in the context of youth homelessness, and including in the application of the Charter to youth issues, and the interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Rights of the Child ("UNCRC") and other international legal instruments.

[35] JFCY has repeatedly been granted intervener status or has been appointed as amicus curiae in cases dealing with the rights and interests of children and youth at all levels of court, including numerous occasions at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Real and Substantial Interest

[36] JFCY has significant interest in the subject matter of this proceeding because it is widely understood and recognized that homeless young people are a distinct group of people with needs and interests that differ in meaningful ways from those of adults who are homeless. This is so not only because of the inherent vulnerability of young people generally, but also as a result of the unique features and impact of homelessness for young people. This is demonstrated in part by the existence of a unique body of social science literature and a stand-alone social services sector dedicated to young people.

[37] JFCY says that it is trite that payment of fines presents an impossibility to young people who have no source of income, no place to live and little adult support in their lives. For this and other reasons, young people routinely relegate the significance of tickets and fines to the lowest level, seek no help or advice and proceed unaware that they could have a defense or other justice system recourse and that mounting fines will result in insurmountable barriers int the future. The presence of homeless and street youth and the limitations on their ability to seek alms to survive raises a number of unique concerns affecting their Charter rights which differ from adults. The accumulation of fines stemming from contravening the SSA can hinder their ability to receive and continue receiving social assistance and influence their ability to obtain loans for educational purposes.

Important and Distinct Perspective

[38] JFCY's proposed intervention will provide a unique perspective regarding the impact of the SSA on homeless children and youth, grounded in the social context of this distinct subset of people who are significantly and disproportionately impacted by the SSA. JFCY will address the unique legal implications of childhood, adolescence, and emerging adulthood, and will provide a contextual and intersectional analysis that is required to thoroughly evaluate the Charter considerations before the Court.

[39] JFCY's submissions will generally address the rights of young people to access justice, the legally recognized and inherent vulnerabilities of young people, the nuanced concerns that apply to homeless children and young people and the potential harm to the administration of justice as a whole.

[40] JCFY will argue that children and young people are recognized as inherently vulnerable as a result of their developmental age, lack of sophistication, reduced physical and emotional maturity and dependency on adults. Young people who experience homelessness are particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged. Social science research demonstrates, for example, that they are commonly escaping situations of neglect and physical and sexual abuse, are likely to have previous involvement in the child welfare system, have lower levels of educational attainment, and suffer mental illness at several times higher than the national average. They are vulnerable to poor health, ongoing victimization, including as victims of human trafficking. Young people struggle to obtain housing for reasons beyond poverty including their age, and struggle to obtain employment .and income supports in unique ways. At the same time, children and young people are overrepresented in the homeless and street-involved populations. Homeless young people are routinely ticketed for street offences, including the SSA. They are consequently disproportionately and distinctly affected by the SSA and the collateral consequences of its enforcement.

[41] JCFY will argue that the SSA serves to limit the ability of children and young people to ask for help and communicate their poverty. The SSA imposes upon society's most vulnerable – children escaping abuse, exiting the care of the child welfare system, and experiencing poverty and social exclusion on multiple grounds – grossly disproportionate punishment for simply seeking assistance and subsistence, exposing them to further harms, while achieving no legitimate objective. The collateral consequences will affect the child throughout their life course.

[42] JCFY will argue that the Charter must be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the human rights instruments Canada has ratified. The SSA is contrary to the rights guaranteed to children – all people under age 18 – by the UNCRC and other human rights instruments. The SSA's repressive measures fail to give effect to a child rights approach and the principle of the best interests of the child, and significantly violates children's rights under the UNCRC, contrary to Canada's international commitments. These international commitments must guide this Court's analysis of the Charter rights of children and young people.

[43] In my view, JFCY's intervention in this proceeding meets all three criteria for intervention.

Income Security Advocate Centre

Well Recognized Group with Special Expertise

[44] The Centre is a specialty legal clinic funded by Legal Aid Ontario to advance the rights, interests and systemic concerns of low-income Ontarians. It is the only legal clinic in Ontario wholly devoted to systemic advocacy on income security issues.

Real and Substantial Interest

[45] The Centre has extensive expertise in social assistance issues. Since 2001, the Centre has successfully engaged in test case litigation and public interest interventions on behalf social assistance recipients, policy advocacy and government consultation to improve the program, public legal education and community organizing with and on behalf of recipients. The Centre has developed a deep and nuanced understanding of the social assistance regime and the lived experiences of recipients.

[46] The Centre has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings because the issues raised in this Application will have a distinct impact on low-income and vulnerable people who panhandle to survive and meet their needs. The issues raised are important and of profound importance to the communities of clients the Centre serves and whose rights the Centre seeks to advance.

Important and Distinct Perspective

[47] The Centre will focus its argument on the fact that poverty and equality considerations should inform the s. 7 analysis. It will argue that people who live in poverty are often reliant on social assistance or other income support programs for their survival. However, social assistance rates in particular are inadequate for people to meet their basic needs. Their ability to meet their basic needs is further restricted by social assistance rules and regulations that reduce benefit rates for recipients who attempt to supplement their income or reduce their cost of living. As a result of these and other structural barriers, many poor people – including social assistance recipients – are forced to panhandle to survive.

[48] The Centre will argue that the Supreme Court has left open the possibility that the security of the person interest under s. 7 of the Charter includes "economic rights", and in particular the right not to be deprived of one's ability to meet their basic needs. This case provides an opportunity for this Court to clarify when the state can (or cannot) justifiably impose laws that restrict a person's ability to meet their basic necessities of life. It will argue that where someone is already poor or on social assistance, prohibiting means of supplementing income engages the security of the person's interest. The Centre will address foreign domestic law and Canada's obligations under international law to aid the Court's interpretation of security of the person under s. 7 of the Charter, especially in relation to poverty.

[49] In my view, the Centre's intervention in this proceeding meets all three criteria for intervention.

Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Well Recognized Group with Special Expertise

[50] The CCLA is a well-recognized group with a special expertise and with a broad identifiable membership base. It is an independent non-partisan, non-profit organization.

[51] Since its creation in 1964, CCLA has been a leading national civil liberties organization, defending and promoting the rights and freedoms of people in Canada. The CCLA has thousands of supporters and followers nationwide, and its membership represents a wide variety of persons, occupations and interests.

[52] The CCLA continually seeks to defend, foster, and ensure fundamental rights and freedoms through advocacy inside and outside of courts. In its advocacy, the CCLA seeks to reconcile civil liberties and human rights with other public interests. The underlying purpose of its work is the maintenance of a free and democratic society in Canada.

[53] Since its founding, the CCLA has challenged legislation, intervened in courts across Canada, presented briefs to legislative committees and delivered programs to promote fundamental rights and freedoms for persons in Canada. The CCLA's early activity spanned such issues as emergency orders, protests and police accountability.

[54] The CCLA has a long and recognized record of assisting courts in cases involving civil liberties.

[55] The CCLA's contribution to the development of the law in relation to civil liberties and constitutional rights has been recognized by the courts on numerous occasions. For instance, in Batty v. City of Toronto, 2011 ONSC 6862, 108 O.R. (3d) 571, the Court commended the balanced assistance provided by the CCLA in a case dealing with reconciling competing public interests. The Court, at para. 22 of its reasons, stated: "Let me say that I appreciate the assistance which counsel for the CCLA provided to me during the hearing. The CCLA acted as a true friend of the court."

Real and Substantial Interest

[56] The CCLA has a distinct awareness and understanding of many aspects of civil liberties and constitutional rights, having argued for and defended the rights of individuals on numerous occasions. The CCLA has been involved in the litigation of many important developments, including in the evolution of the jurisprudence considering freedom of expression and equality rights. It has frequently been granted intervener status before courts and tribunals across Canada to present oral and written argument on a variety of constitutional issues.

[57] The CCLA has a real, substantial and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. This case raises important constitutional issues and engages fundamental questions about justice and fairness in contemporary Canadian society. It touches on Charter rights including freedom of expression and equality that lie at the core of the CCLA's mandate and expertise. The CCLA has long recognized the rights implications of the SSA. It intervened in a challenge to some of its provisions in R. v. Banks, 2007 ONCA 19, 84 O.R. (3d) 1. In that case, CCLA intervened before the Ontario Court of Justice, this Honourable Court, and the Ontario Court of Appeal as the sole intervenor. CCLA's submissions focussed on section 2(b) of the Charter and the impact of the SSA on constitutionally protected expression, including the communication of need by indigent and socio-economically disadvantaged persons communication of need by indigent and socio-economically disadvantaged persons.

[58] As well, the CCLA has a long-standing interest in protecting freedom of expression, and in ensuring that Canadian courts appropriately reconcile this fundamental freedom with other rights and values.

Important and Distinct Perspective

[59] The CCLA has an important perspective distinct from the immediate parties. It will argue that the impugned sections infringe on freedom of expression by prohibiting people from seeking alms and prohibiting the intended audience from hearing the message. The CCLA has had significant and in-depth experience considering s. 12 of the Charter. It intervened before the Supreme Court of Canada in Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec Inc., 2020 SCC 32, which considered whether corporations should or should not have a right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment under s. 12 of the Charter. The CCLA also intervened before the Court of Appeal in R v. Tinker, 2017 ONCA 552, 136 O.R. (3d) 718, which considered whether mandatory victim surcharges violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter. Finally, the CCLA initiated an application as a public interest litigant that challenged provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, S.C. 1992, c. 20, which authorize "administrative segregation" in Canadian correctional institutions. If granted intervention, it will argue that the impugned provisions constitute cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter which must also be interpreted in light of the Charter's protection of equality rights.

[60] The CCLA will also argue that the punishment for violating the SSA is grossly disproportionate. Many people experiencing homelessness are, despite stereotypes and stigma to the contrary, capable with appropriate supports of getting out of homelessness. They are worthy of dignity, not punishment.

[61] The CCLA's submissions will be based on the organization's mandate to ensure the protection and vindication of fundamental freedoms and legal rights. The CCLA offers a unique perspective based on its experience assisting Courts and tribunals in the challenge of reconciling freedoms and rights with other interests.

Conclusion

[62] As noted above, the intervention motions have been brought with the consent of the Applicant, Fair Change, and are not opposed by the Respondent Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario.

[63] In my view, even though there may be some overlap, each of the proposed intervenors will be able to make a useful contribution and satisfy the test for intervention.

[64] None of the proposed intervenors wishes to file evidence. They seek only to provide written and oral argument. They will not seek costs.

[65] I am granting the intervention order sought. In my view, the interventions will not delay the hearing of this application or create any prejudice.

[66] Order to go in the form attached hereto.

[67] I note that the Application was commenced in 2017. In or around February 2019, Fair Change filed a request with the Court for case management on consent of all parties. It has periodically followed up with this request but did not receive a response.

[68] On December 11, 2020, it arranged a case conference before me on an urgent basis to move forwards with this litigation. At the case conference I imposed a schedule for this intervention motion which has now been completed.

[69] However, I am concerned that this matter is of public importance and the parties may be in need of further case management to ensure that this matter proceeds expeditiously and efficiently.

[70] Accordingly, I am directing that if the parties still feel that case management is desirable, then they should parties submit another request for case management pursuant to r. 77.05(1) which provides that such requests must be made to the regional senior judge. If they are satisfied that having completed this intervention motion that they can manage the rest of this matter, then they should proceed to Civil Practice Court to schedule the date for the hearing of the Application.

Papageorgiou J.

Released: April 9, 2021

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

FAIR CHANGE Applicant

– and –

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Papageorgiou J.

Released: April 9, 2021