Justice McEwen examined this question amongst others in Schenk v Valeant Pharmaceuticals (2015). Justice McEwen stated there was “no reason why such funding would be inappropriate in the field of commercial litigation.” He further held that funding agreements are acceptable if the funder did not stir up litigation, does not control the litigation, and its return on investment is reasonable.
The prevailing view is that court approval is not required in the vast majority of cases. There are exceptions regarding class actions and insolvency, where the court has an established supervisory role. This approach was confirmed in Seedlings v. Pfizer Canada Inc. (2017), where Case Management Judge Tabib held that there was no need to seek court approval, as "the manner in which [a plaintiff] chooses to fund a litigation it has every right to bring is of no concern to the Court or to the Defendant."
In Re Bluberi Gaming Technologies (Quebec Superior Court, March 2018) Justice Michaud confirmed that a litigation funding agreement “does not diminish [plaintiffs] ability to control its litigation and instruct its counsel; The LFA does not compromise or impair [plaintiffs] lawyer-client relationship or its lawyers’ duties of loyalty and confidentiality”. The litigation funder will expect updates but they do not control the litigation. It is worth noting that funders are often operated by very experienced litigation who can provide intelligent insight if required. A useful additional service.
* All the information listed above is subject to change. Maven Global and it’s representatives cannot be held liable should the information above change or should the courts or any legal body take a different view on the above. The legal landscape surrounding funding transactions is constantly evolving. It is always best to speak with us directly for the latest information.