Background
Members of the Faculty Association of Simon Fraser University challenged two resolutions directing the association to call on Simon Fraser University to take positions concerning the conflict in Gaza and to divest from certain corporations involved in military-arms production. They argued under s. 104 of British Columbia’s Societies Act that the resolutions were inconsistent with the association’s constitutional purposes.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the petition, holding that both resolutions were connected to the association’s stated purposes. On appeal, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia jointly sought leave to intervene on the association’s dual status as a society and trade union and on academic freedom. Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights sought leave to address “scholasticide,” international human-rights law, and the Gaza resolution.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Riley granted CAUT and CUFA BC leave to intervene jointly. Their broader institutional perspective on collectivity, solidarity, academic freedom, and the interpretation of a faculty union’s purposes could assist the Court without necessarily duplicating the Faculty Association’s arguments. They were permitted one factum of no more than 10 pages, could neither duplicate the respondent’s submissions nor introduce new evidence, and would not receive or pay costs. Whether they may make oral submissions was left to the appeal panel.
The Court refused CLIHR leave to intervene. Its proposed arguments would draw the Court into assessing the substance, correctness, or advisability of the Gaza resolution—an issue the parties had treated, and the petition judge had held, as non-justiciable. The proposed intervention would also rely on international instruments and academic literature outside the record and elevate “scholasticide,” a concept minimally addressed below, into a new issue on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A public-interest intervener must offer a useful and distinct perspective without improperly expanding the appeal.
- Alignment with a party does not automatically bar intervention, but conditions may be imposed to prevent duplication and new evidence.
- An intervener cannot transform a limited statutory dispute into an adjudication of the factual or political merits of the underlying resolution.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the boundary between helpful contextual submissions and an attempted expansion of an appeal. Organizations representing university faculty may address how trade-union principles and academic freedom inform a faculty association’s purposes, but interveners may not use that opening to litigate contested international events outside the record.
The decision concerns intervention only. It does not decide the merits of the members’ appeal or determine whether the Faculty Association’s resolutions were inconsistent with its purposes under the Societies Act.