Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Update regarding the Good Faith and Best Interests Requirements of the Test for Leave to Commence Derivative Actions

By Aaron Stephenson & Preston Brasch on January 26, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On December 2, 2020, we blogged about the release of a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision affirming a denial of leave for 2538520 Ontario Ltd. (253) to bring a derivative action on behalf of Eastern Platinum Limited (EPL) against various of EPL’s directors and officers: 2538520 Ontario Ltd. v Eastern Platinum Limited, 2020 BCCA 313 (Eastern Platinum).  That blog post is linked here.

Eastern Platinum is an important case because it clarifies that an application for leave to bring a derivative action may be denied if there is reason to believe the applicant is not acting in good faith because of ulterior or personal motives, even if the proposed derivative action is presumptively meritorious.

Eastern Platinum has quickly entrenched itself as a leading authority. In less than three months, it has already been affirmatively cited in three further leave cases:

  • He v Zhong, 2020 BCSC 1867
  • Empowered Startups Ltd. v Canadian Association of Business Incubation, 2020 BCSC 1904
  • Hevey v Wonderland Commercial, et al., 2021 ONSC 540

In each of these new cases, leave to bring a derivative action was denied at least in part because an ulterior motive was identified that precluded the judge from finding that the applicant was acting in good faith and in furtherance of the corporation’s interests.  Like in Eastern Platinum, leave was denied in each case because there was reason to believe the applicant was motivated, not by a desire to advance the corporation’s interests, but instead by the applicant’s own interests.

Like Eastern Platinum itself, these three new cases reflect how the applicant’s motivations are being pushed to the forefront of leave applications.  A corporation that is faced with a leave application should carefully investigate the applicant’s motives and adduce any evidence tending to prove a personal interest or ulterior motive on the part of the applicant that is not shared by the subject corporation.  For example, an applicant’s potential to leverage a derivative action in commercial negotiations with the corporation may disqualify the application from obtaining leave.

Photo of Aaron Stephenson Aaron Stephenson

Aaron Stephenson practises commercial litigation, professional liability, insolvency and restructuring, and aboriginal law.

As a commercial litigator, Mr. Stephenson has experience representing energy industry participants.  As an insolvency and restructuring lawyer, Mr. Stephenson works on a team that advises debtors, creditors and insolvency…

Aaron Stephenson practises commercial litigation, professional liability, insolvency and restructuring, and aboriginal law.

As a commercial litigator, Mr. Stephenson has experience representing energy industry participants.  As an insolvency and restructuring lawyer, Mr. Stephenson works on a team that advises debtors, creditors and insolvency professionals in CCAA and BIA proceedings.

Mr. Stephenson has acted in a wide range of matters in the aboriginal law field, advising government and industry.  He has defended claims alleging breaches of aboriginal and treaty rights.  He has also resisted efforts by First Nations to overturn regulatory approvals based on alleged breaches of the duty to consult.  Mr. Stephenson spent more than two years practising aboriginal law exclusively while working as in-house legal counsel for a major pipeline operator.

Mr. Stephenson has appeared in all levels of courts in Alberta and has also worked on matters before the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Read more about Aaron StephensonEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Preston Brasch Preston Brasch
Read more about Preston BraschEmail
  • Posted in:
    Corporate Governance and Compliance
  • Blog:
    Securities Litigation and Enforcement
  • Organization:
    Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo