Background
The Law Society of British Columbia and the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia appealed the dismissal of constitutional challenges to provincial legislation that would eliminate lawyers’ self-governance and self-regulation. Kevin McLean, a twice-disbarred lawyer previously declared a vexatious litigant, applied for permission to intervene in those appeals.
A chambers judge denied intervention, finding that McLean had no direct interest in the appeals, represented no broader constituency, offered no distinct perspective on the constitutional questions, and could not assist the Court. McLean then applied under s. 29 of the Court of Appeal Act to cancel or vary that ruling. He also attempted to strike the parties’ joint response opposing his application and to prohibit them from responding.
The Court’s Holding
The Court dismissed the application to cancel or vary the denial of intervener status. Such an application is not a rehearing, and the standard is highly deferential: intervention is available only if the chambers judge was wrong in law or principle or misconceived the facts. McLean identified no such error and instead revisited historical grievances against lawyers and Law Society regulators that were irrelevant to the proposed intervention and the underlying appeals.
The Court also rejected McLean’s attempt to strike the parties’ joint response. Because the parties had opposed his intervention, they were entitled to oppose his effort to set aside the resulting order. The Court prohibited McLean from filing further materials in the appeals and directed the registry to discard any that he attempted to file.
Key Takeaways
- An application to vary a chambers order is not a rehearing and is governed by a highly deferential standard.
- A proposed intervener must demonstrate a direct interest or a useful, distinct public-interest perspective that can assist the court.
- Personal grievances unrelated to the issues on appeal do not justify intervener status, and abusive filings may lead to restrictions on further submissions.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the Court of Appeal’s gatekeeping role over interventions, especially in significant constitutional litigation. Proposed interveners must focus on the legal issues before the court and show how their participation would add meaningful assistance.
It also confirms that applications to vary cannot be used to reargue a failed motion or pursue collateral disputes, and that the Court may impose filing restrictions to protect appellate proceedings from further abusive or irrelevant materials.