Talk:Intervention (law)

terminology[edit]

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)[reply]

spelling[edit]

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)[reply]

Errors in article[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intervention (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527222056/http://www.justice.org.uk/resources.php/32/to-assist-the-court to http://www.justice.org.uk/resources.php/32/to-assist-the-court

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intervention (law). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]