[18] To the extent the doctrine of
champerty and maintenance remains relevant in Canadian common law, even as means of protecting the courts and vulnerable litigants against abuses, its purpose is not and was never intended to be achieved by conferring on the courts the discretion to inquire
into and approve or disapprove of a plaintiff's funding arrangements as a condition precedent to instituting or pursuing litigation.
The Plaintiff sought to have recognised and enforce a New York arbitration award and related judgments, and pre-emptorily sought approval of the funding agreement it had entered
into, to determine whether it would contravene
champerty and be unenforceable.