R. v. N.M.P., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 857
N.M.P. Applicant
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
Indexed as: R. v. N.M.P.
Neutral citation: 2000 SCC 59.
File No.: 27936.
2000: November 2.
Present: Arbour J.
motion to intervene on application for leave to appeal
Practice – Intervention – Motion to intervene on application for leave to appeal – Leave to intervene prior to granting of leave to appeal granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Cases Cited
Referred to: RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), S.C.C., No. 23460, October 4, 1993.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/83-74, rules 18 [am. SOR/95-573], 24(5) [rep. & sub. SOR/88-247].
Supreme Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26 , s. 40(1) [rep. & sub. 1990, c. 8, s. 37].
MOTION for leave to intervene on an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, 2000 NSCA 46, 188 D.L.R. (4th) 350 (sub nom. R. v. P. (N.M.)), 146 C.C.C. (3d) 167, 33 C.R. (5th) 113, [2000] N.S.J. No. 98 (QL). Motion adjourned.
Written submissions by Anne S. Derrick, for the applicant Stepping Stone.
Written submissions by James A. Gumpert, Q.C., for the respondent.
The following is the order delivered by
1 Arbour J. — The applicant, Stepping Stone, was an intervener before the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal and supported the position of the accused, N.M.P. whose appeal from conviction was dismissed by that court. N.M.P. now seeks leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. S-26 . In support of N.M.P.’s application, Stepping Stone seeks leave to intervene on the application for leave to appeal.
2 The Rules of this Court that are relevant to this application are Rule 18, which deals with interveners, and Rule 24, which concerns the hearing of applications for leave. Rule 18(1) provides that any person interested in an appeal may apply to a judge for leave to intervene. Rule 18(2) provides that a motion for intervention shall be filed and served within 60 days after the filing of the notice of appeal or the reference. It is implicit in Rule 18(2) that the application for leave to intervene will not be addressed by this Court until after leave to appeal has been granted.
3 In a Notice to the Profession concerning interveners dated August 1999, this Court indicated that the deadline for applying for leave to intervene is 60 days from the filing of the notice of appeal or reference, pursuant to Rule 18(2). Once the 60-day period has expired, the Registrar will submit to the rota judge all applications for intervention that have been filed within the deadline. These applications will then be determined together as provided for in the Rules. This Notice to the Profession indicates that the normal process is for all applications for intervention to be heard together, following the granting of leave to appeal by this Court.
4 Rule 24(5) further supports the view that applications for leave to intervene will not usually be considered until after leave to appeal has been granted. It curtails interventions at an earlier stage by providing that: “[n]o person shall intervene on an application for leave or a motion before the Court unless ordered by a Judge prior to the hearing of the application or motion, on such terms and conditions and with such rights and privileges as the Judge may determine.”
5 This Court has indicated that leave to intervene prior to the granting of leave to appeal will rarely be granted. In RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), S.C.C., No. 23460, October 4, 1993, the Court granted leave to intervene to the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, on consent, in an application to stay certain proposed federal regulations pending an application for leave to appeal. However, the Court clearly indicated that granting leave at this stage of the proceedings was not the norm, stating: “let the record reflect that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that intervener status is granted in proceedings of this nature” (transcript). In my view, this application does not present exceptional circumstances that would justify departure from the normal rule that applications for leave to intervene will only be considered once leave to appeal has been granted.
6 For these reasons, I adjourn the application for leave to intervene pending the disposition of the application for leave to appeal. If leave to appeal is granted in this case, the application for leave to intervene may be brought back before this Court on notice to the parties to the proceedings.
Motion adjourned.
Solicitors for the applicant Stepping Stone: Beaton, Derrick & Ring, Halifax.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Public Prosecution Service, Halifax.
Email this Content