|
Intervention - Friend of the Court [RCP 13.01(2)] (4). Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario
In Caruso v. Law Society of Ontario (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a combined motion for intervention by several paralegal-related entities, here in an appeal from a JR dismissing the appellant's "application challenging the Law Society of Ontario’s restrictions on the permitted scope of practice for paralegals in immigration matters":A. Relevant Principles
[6] In determining whether to grant leave to intervene as a friend of the court pursuant to r. 13.03(2), the court will consider “the nature of the case, the issues which arise and the likelihood of the applicant being able to make a useful contribution to the resolution of the appeal without causing injustice to the immediate parties”: Peel (Regional Municipality) v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada (1990), 1990 CanLII 6886 (ON CA); Foster v. West, 2021 ONCA 263 at para. 10; Reference re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, 2019 ONCA 29 at para. 8.
[7] The likelihood of assistance is a function of many variables, including, but not only, the experience and expertise of the proposed intervenor: Jones v. Tsige, 2011 CanLII 99894 (ON CA) (Jones) at para. 25.
[8] Where the litigation in which the intervention is sought is a private dispute, the standard to be met by the proposed intervenor is more onerous or more stringently applied. While this dispute is between an individual and the LSO, the court’s decision on the appeal will impact the interests of paralegals and the public as it relates to the provision of immigration services. As such, in my view, this is a public policy case with broader implications in which a “softened’ threshold applies: Jones, at para. 23.
[9] The appeal has been perfected but has not yet been listed for hearing. Accordingly, the addition of any intervenors will not prejudice the parties by jeopardizing a previously scheduled hearing date.
....
[19] CILA submitted a draft of the factum that it would file if granted leave to intervene, a practice that, while not mandatory, is of considerable assistance to the court on intervention motions and should be encouraged. Its submissions clearly focus on the statutory interpretation principle of the presumption of constitutionality, which CILA in turn applies to the interpretation of s. 91 of the IRPA. This line of argument is distinct from those made by the parties and other proposed intervenors.
....
[43] A friend of the court serves the court, not the parties. The role connotes an element of impartiality or altruism: Baldwin v. Imperial Metals Corporation, 2021 ONCA 114 (Baldwin) at para. 4.
[44] I am mindful of this Court’s decision in Henry v. Zaitlen, 2023 ONCA 740 in which counsel to one of the parties also sat on the executive committee of a legal organization (Ontario Trial Lawyers Association) that was granted leave to intervene in an appeal. In that case, however, there was no dispute that OTLA was a well-recognized group who had often been granted intervenor status in previous cases. There was no suggestion of actual conflict, or evidence consistent with the organization being the appellant in disguise. The landscape is not so straightforward here. The CPA submits that the appellant (its president and one of its four directors) has recused himself – yet he has filed evidence and made submissions on its behalf. This is not a case where “the strong presumption of professionalism” (para 20) can be relied upon. The CPA’s connection with the appellant undermines the appearance of impartiality needed to act as a friend of the court.
|
