The respondents sought leave under s. 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action.
The appellants, who were the intended defendants in the proposed action, moved to intervene in the leave application.
The motions judge dismissed the motion to intervene.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 246 permits the proceeding to be brought by application rather than motion, and that the motions judge did not err in exercising his discretion to deny intervention, as the intended defendants' rights would be fully protected once the action was commenced.
