Legal Landscape Blog

Maintenance and Champerty in Canada

Discussions about third-party funding often raise questions about the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty. This article sets out how third-party funding fits into the Canadian legal landscape, in light of the history and evolution of maintenance and champerty.

High-interest litigation “loans” vs. non-recourse litigation funding

Last month’s Ontario Superior Court costs decision in a personal injury-type case, Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), caught our attention. It puts into sharp relief the differences between companies who offer loans for personal injury litigation and funders like Bentham who provide funding for corporate-commercial claims and class actions.

Third Party Litigation Funding: Saskatchewan Makes Six

Following the recent decision of the Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan in Schneider v Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc, six provinces have now set out the guiding principles for approving third-party litigation funding agreements. Although most decisions are in the class action context, they are instructive for general commercial litigation, the core of Bentham IMF’s business in Canada.

Maintenance and Champerty: Dead but not buried?

In our conversations introducing commercial litigation funding to the Canadian legal market, we are frequently asked about maintenance and champerty. Under current Canadian jurisprudence, third-party funding does not offend the doctrines of maintenance and champerty.