Varley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1189

Date: 20211105

Docket: T-2166-18

Citation: 2021 FC 1189

Ottawa, Ontario, November 5, 2021

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan

ORDER AND REASONS

[1] This is a motion by the Métis National Council and the Manitoba Metis Foundation Inc. [the Proposed Interveners] for intervener status in this class action.

[2] Prior to hearing the motion, the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Interveners reached a settlement of this intervention motion. The Defendant took no position on the Proposed Interveners’ motion.

[3] The settlement sought an order as follows:

1. The Métis National Council and the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. are granted leave to file evidence, file written argument and make oral arguments at any settlement approval motion that might occur in this proceeding.

2. This motion by the Métis National Council and the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. is otherwise dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the Métis National Council and the Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. to bring a new motion in the future seeking to intervene in other steps in this proceeding.

[4] There is no settlement approval motion pending. The proposed order is tentative, speculative and contingent on some anticipated settlement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

[5] The central issue in a motion to intervene is whether the proposed intervention will assist the Court in determining a factual or legal issue raised by the proceeding (Rule 109(2)(b)).

[6] While the Proposed Interveners have been recognized by Canada as speaking on behalf of their members, the Proposed Interveners cannot tell the Court what they intend to say, what evidence they intend to lead or to show in any concrete sense how their intervention will assist the Court.

[7] Further, absent a settlement approval motion, and a proper intervention motion, which addresses the above, the Court cannot exercise its responsibility to issue directions for the conduct of the intervention as provided in Rule 109(3).

[8] The Court must conclude that in all the circumstances, the motion, on the terms proposed, does not meet the requirements of Rule 109(2)(b) nor is this a case, at this time, for the Court to exercise its discretion to grant intervener status without prejudice to file a further and better intervener application.

ORDER in T-2166-18

FOR THESE REASONS, THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion as proposed is dismissed without costs without prejudice to the right to file another application for intervener status.

"Michael L. Phelan"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: