Talk:Intervention (law)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

[edit] terminology

Depending on the precise language of the Rules of Court and the context, an intervener is sometimes considered a "party" to the proceedings and sometimes considered not to be a "party". In my edit to the article, I removed the term "third party" because that can be confusing. In civil litigation a "third party" is quite different from an intervener.

In case someone wants to create the article third party (civil litigation), Rule 22 of the B.C. Supreme Court rules is helpful. A "third party" is, in general, added to litigation involuntarily (as opposed to an intervener, who is someone that has sought to be added to the litigation).

Here is an example of a third party in civil litigation. Suppose you are getting married and you have a contract with a florist to provide a certain type of flowers. The florist, in turn, makes a separate contract with a flower wholesaler. If you don't get the flowers at your wedding, you would sue the florist. The florist might then issue a third-party notice against the wholesaler. --Mathew5000 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spelling

The Supreme Court of Canada spells it "intervener" but some other courts in Canada spell it "intervenor". See for example Rule 36 of the British Columbia Court of Appeal Rules [1], and rules 6.09 and 26.06 of the Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings [2]. --Mathew5000 12:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in article

This article treats intervention and amicus curiae as the same thing. I will have to rewrite most of it. --Eastlaw 10:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, as the article states, in Canadian law there is a big difference between intervention and amicus curiae, but the Canadian notion of intervention is analogous to what the Americans would typically call amicus curiae. --Mathew5000 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between intervening as a party and filing an amicus brief. That difference is considerably more pronounced in American law, but that's not what the article says. So at the very least, I will have to add a new section to make this clear, because the article as it stands now is virtually incomprehensible to anyone outside Canada. --Eastlaw 19:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The plan you outlined on my Talk page sounds generally reasonable. --Mathew5000 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I alphabetized the sections by country, since there was no particular reason for US practice to come first. --Mathew5000 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)