Civil Practice and Procedure - Parties - Intervenors
ST was seriously injured in motor vehicle collision and commenced action against insurer in relation to her entitlement to statutory accident benefits. Divisional Court dismissed her judicial review application, and she obtained leave to appeal to Court of Appeal. SS was also seriously injured in motor vehicle collision, his claim was refused, and he commenced appeal to Divisional Court. SS submitted that issue in his case was almost identical to that of ST, and he sought to have his case heard at same time. SS brought motion for order permitting him to participate by having court reconstitute itself as panel of Divisional Court and hear his appeal immediately after ST's, or for order granting him leave to intervene as party. Motion dismissed. Rule permitting consolidation applies only to proceedings in same court, not different court as in this case. Efficiency was not sufficient reason to grant relief requested, and circumstances did not warrant rare reconstitution. Impact of granting intervenor status would be to effectively bypass Divisional Court for sake of convenience, and would result in expansion of record and delay hearing date.
Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 17065, 2019 ONCA 839, Gary Trotter J.A. (Ont. C.A.).
Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca
