Intervention Canada is a five-part documentary series that takes the viewer deep inside the roller coaster of addiction. From a Winnipeg family determined to rescue their talented musician son from a deadly crystal meth addiction to a Hamilton family's struggle to save their daughter from the grips of an addiction to computer keyboard duster, the series provides an unflinching glimpse at the horrifying reality of the life of an addict, as well as the gut-wrenching toll their addiction takes on their family and friends. With the help of returning interventionists Andrew Galloway and Maureen Brine, each episode culminates in a dramatic intervention where the subject must make a life-and-death decision –- continue their descent to rock bottom alone, or accept the offer of a clear path to recovery in one of Canada's top addiction treatment facilities.
Runtime: 60 minutes
Intervention Canada - Intervention (law) - Netflix
In law, intervention is a procedure to allow a nonparty, called intervenor (also spelled intervener) to join ongoing litigation, either as a matter of right or at the discretion of the court, without the permission of the original litigants. The basic rationale for intervention is that a judgment in a particular case may affect the rights of nonparties, who ideally should have the right to be heard.
Intervention Canada - United States - Netflix
In the United States federal courts, intervention is governed by Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 24(a) governs intervention of right. A potential party (called the applicant) has the right to intervene in a case either (1) when a federal statute explicitly confers upon the applicant an unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the lawsuit. In the second situation, in order to be admitted as an intervenor, the applicant must show that its ability to protect its interest would be impeded by disposition of the case and that its interest is not adequately represented by the current parties to the case. Rule 24(b) provides for permissive intervention, which is subject to the discretion of the judge hearing the case. An applicant may be permitted by the court to intervene (1) when a federal statute confers upon the applicant a conditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant's claim or defense shares a common question of law or fact with the main action. Agents of the federal or state government may be permitted by the court to intervene when a party to a case relies on a federal or state statute or executive order, or any regulation promulgated thereunder, for its claim or defense. In both intervention of right and permissive intervention, the applicant must make a timely application to be heard. The applicant cannot sit on its rights; it must intervene as soon as it has reason to know that its interest may be adversely affected by the outcome of the pending litigation. The applicant must serve its motion to intervene on the parties to the case and explain its reasons for intervening in the motion papers. In addition, U.S. federal law does not allow the procedure of intervention to violate the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. The court must have either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction over the intervenor's claim. Supplemental jurisdiction is not permitted for intervention claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b) when the original claim's federal jurisdiction was based solely on diversity and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the intervening claim would be inconsistent with the diversity requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, supplemental jurisdiction is permitted when the claims are so related that they form the same case or controversy. In the courts of the State of Texas, a jurisdiction whose rules of civil procedure differ considerably from the rules of civil procedure in federal court, a nonparty may intervene in a pending lawsuit by filing a pleading, which is typically called “plea in intervention” or “petition in intervention” without leave of the court, but any party in the pending lawsuit may object and ask for the intervention to be struck for cause. TEX. R. CIV. P. 60 (“Any party may intervene by filing a pleading, subject to being stricken out by the court for sufficient cause on the motion of any party.”). While the Texas rules of civil procedure require no judicial permission and impose no intervention deadline, the common law dictates that a party may not intervene post-judgment unless the trial court first sets aside the judgment. See State v. Naylor, 466 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Tex. 2015). For the same reason, an intervenor must enter the lawsuit before final judgment to have standing to bring an appeal.
Intervention Canada - References - Netflix