Intervening Before the Supreme Court of Canada as told by a Kinesthetic Learner

My long-lost, free-spirited friend from law school, Surinder Multani, called me out of the blue in January of 2020. She said, “Hey, it’s been awhile, look, I have an opportunity for you. My case is going to the Supreme Court, Colucci v Colucci. Read it. It’s about the legal framework to use when rescinding retroactive child support. I represent the recipient mother and I want you to be an intervener.”

I took a moment because quite honestly, I didn’t know anything about intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada. I was four and a half years into running my small family law firm with my business partner and trusted ally, Altynay Teshebaeva. Sure, I was comfortable in the routine of my busy practice and litigating in Superior Court, but this was a whole new ball game, the big leagues, the biggest of the leagues and I had goosebumps! Litigation lawyers have this unspoken secret dream of appearing at the Supreme Court of Canada and here was the opportunity just being dangled in front of me. I knew there would be a lot of work involved and a lot of unknown, but sometimes you have to just go for it. Surinder and I chatted more, jumping into our old rhythm, talking candidly about where our practices and lives had taken us over the past 6 years. Before the call ended, I told her that I would figure out how to intervene on the case. We were both very excited for the journey ahead.

The appeal concerned whether the factors set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in DBS v SRG, 2006 SCC 37 [“DBS”] are to be applied in circumstances where a party is requesting a variation to rescind child support arrears under section 17 of the Divorce Act. The legal issue was interesting to me. In my practice I had seen child support orders that the payor could not fulfill for various reasons and I had seen recipients struggle to obtain their court-ordered child support. Provincial Appeal Courts have released contradictory decisions pertaining to which legal framework is invoked when faced with this issue. Interveners have a unique voice in an appeal. They have the opportunity to show the Court how a legal issue impacts a broader societal context and advocate for the inclusion of social policy considerations.

Immediately after Surinder and I ended the call, I made a list: