We also warned potential interveners that, if admitted, they will have to take the issues set by the appellant and as disclosed in the reasons of the Federal Court and neither add to them nor add to the evidentiary record: Rule 109; Tsleil-Waututh Nation at paras. [...] [12] By announcing the law in this case in advance without closing our ears to correction and supplementation, we received not a dry recital of law already known to the Court but rather Page: 6 focused submissions on the real issue: how the moving parties’ submissions would further the Court’s practical consideration of the issues. [...] [14] However, certain terms must be imposed in addition to the terms usually imposed on interveners to ensure that the requirements of Rule 109 are actually met, to maximize the usefulness of the interventions to the Court and to further judicial economy. [...] At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant will have two opportunities to reply fully to the interveners: first, it can reply to the interveners’ memoranda of fact and law in its submissions in chief and second it can reply to the interveners’ oral submissions in its reply submissions. [...] It will also set the page limits and the timing for the interveners’ memoranda of fact and law and the respondents’ memorandum of fact and law.
- Pages
- 16
- Published in
- Canada
