COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Citation:
 Maple Trust Company v. A.G. (Canada),
 
 
 2007 BCCA 195
 

Date: （略）

Docket: CA034173

Between:

Maple Trust Company

Respondent

(Petitioner)

And

The Attorney General in Right of Canada

Appellant

(Defendant)

Before:
 The Honourable Mr. Justice Low
 
(In Chambers)
 

Oral Reasons for Judgment

R.D. Leong
 Counsel for the Appellant
 
J. Kuroyama
 Counsel for the Respondent
 
J. Bateman
 Counsel for the proposed intervenor

HSBC Bank of Canada
 
Place and Date:
 Vancouver, British Columbia
 
12 March 2007
 

[1]                LOW, J.A.: This is an application by HSBC Bank Canada for intervenor status in this appeal. 

[2]                The Attorney General of Canada appeals an order of Chief Justice Brenner varying a restraint and management order previously made with respect to residential property under s. 14 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act pending disposition of criminal charges brought by the federal Crown under the Act in relation to a marihuana grow operation alleged to have been conducted by the owner on the property.  The order under appeal varies the restraint order by granting the respondent Maple Trust Company an order for sale and conduct of sale of the property with the proceeds net of all charges and costs, including Maple Trust’s mortgage on the property, to be paid into court until the criminal charges have been concluded and, if the owner is convicted, the forfeiture application of the Crown is also determined.  The order of the Chief Justice has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. 

[3]                HSBC is a mortgage lender in another case in which a restraint and management order has been made.  It sought an order of sale similar to that made by Brenner CJSC in the present case but a judge in chambers adjourned that application pending the outcome of the present appeal.  HSBC has not appealed the adjournment order. 

[4]                This appeal is set for hearing on 15 May 2007 for two days.  I understand that two days were set aside because there was another appeal on the same issue which became academic when the Crown withdrew the underlying criminal charges in that case.  As a result, the lack of available court time is not an impediment to participation by HSBC as an intervenor. 

[5]                I am of the opinion, however, that it is not appropriate to make the order sought.  Although it is said that the issue in question is one of general importance to institutional and other lenders within and outside this jurisdiction and that the decision by this Court in the present appeal will have precedential value in the case in which the court adjourned HSBC’s application for an order for sale, the issue is one of private law not public law.  It is clear from the decided cases that intervenor status is more readily available to interested individuals or entities where social or constitutional issues are involved, whether under the Charter or otherwise: see Dha v. Ozdoba, [1991] B.C.J. No. 303.  In private law issues intervention is not often allowed in the absence of a direct interest in the outcome. 

[6]                I am not persuaded that HSBC has a direct interest in the outcome of this appeal.  It is not enough that it will simply be affected by the decision of this Court on the basis of stare decisis.  Therefore, its interest is indirect only. 

[7]                HSBC says that it nevertheless has a unique perspective to present because it deals with the same issue in other parts of Canada and can bring to the attention of the court the nature and content of orders made in Ontario in similar situations.  I do not find this to be an adequate reason for giving HSBC intervenor status.  What has taken place in other jurisdictions to the extent such matters might be of assistance to this Court in the present appeal can be just as easily presented by Maple Leaf as respondent in the appeal.  Maple Leaf is also an institutional lender and has the same capacity as HSBC to bring before the court relevant information from other jurisdictions to the extent such information is properly receivable on the appeal.  This is not a situation in which HSBC has a unique perspective or expertise to offer on the hearing of the appeal.  Its submissions would only be redundant to those that can be made by Maple Leaf. 

[8]                The application by HSBC for intervenor status is dismissed. 

“The Honourable Mr. Justice Low”