Does the distinction between derivative and personal claims need to be maintained?

First, Rea v. Wildeboer leaves open the possibility of an overlap between derivative claims and personal claims in particular situations, typically involving small closely-held corporations. This is clear from the statement in para. 29 in which Blair J.A. states that he is not resolving the more general question of whether the distinction between derivative claims and personal claims should be maintained. Moreover, Blair J.A. refers without disapproval to the fact that there is the potential for overlap, particularly in the case of claims involving small, closely held corporations, where the same wrongful acts can directly affect a complainant in a manner that is different from the indirect effect of the conduct of similarly placed complainants. In this case, the evidence indicates that, while there may be other shareholders in Medcan, it remains a small, closely held corporation. Whether the plaintiff can assert its claims should depend upon whether there is a defensible basis for these claims. In my view there is such a basis, as set out below.