Page: 43 [111] As a general rule, the Courts will not concern themselves with how a lawsuit is funded: Jacobi v Newell, [1992] AJ No 1087 (QB) (QL). Maintenance and champerty may still have arrangements and property rights. The concepts are inconsistent, in my view, with the recognition in modern society of the role of non-governmental organizations in facilitating access to justice and the validity of alternative arrangements for funding litigation, such as contingency fees: McIntyre Estate, above. The costs of litigating, particularly when facing wellresourced respondents, are formidable. [112] Here, the applicants have no prospect of financial reward from these proceedings and there are issues of broad public interest at stake. It is doubtful that they would have had the financial ability to bring these applications on their own without support from some agency. The ability of citizens to bring matters before the courts in the public interest should not be deterred: Re Lavigne and Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al (No. 2), [1987] OJ No 653 (QL) (HCJ) [Lavigne] at para 106, rev’d but aff’d as to costs [1989] OJ No 95 (CA) (QL) at paras 100107, appeal judgment aff’d [1991] 2 SCR 211. [113] There is no evidence that the applicants acted for any reason other than to assert their rights to a fair election as Canadian citizens and electors. [114] The fundamental aim of the law of champerty has always been to protect the administration of justice from abuse. It is not an abuse of the Court’s process for an elector, with or without the support of a non-governmental organization, to bring an application to contest an 2013 FC 525 (CanLII) some relevance to-day in the context of disputes between private parties over contractual