Third party funding (TPF) is one of the ways funding is provided for class proceedings. However, its regulation suffers difficulty because of the uncertainty as to what amounts to a reasonable and fair reward for the funders. When funding is advanced for improper purpose, the common law rule against maintenance and champerty is breached. The law recognizes suit funding as being non-champertous when the claim is reasonable and fair but determining when a funder’s claim meets this criterion is a herculean task for class actions. This paper proposes how to determine the reasonability of a funder’s claim by focusing on rewarding the service offered by the third-party funder rather than focusing on the reasonability of the proportion claimed by the funder in relation to the possible global recovery. There are concerns that TPF agreements offer insurance services because of the nature of the funding provided, but for constraint of space, such analysis is not covered here. While the judicial precedents discussed in this paper are not limited to Ontario and Nigeria, this paper is mainly centered on Class Proceedings in Ontario and Nigeria; therefore, references to the CPA is to the Class Proceedings Act of Ontario except where otherwise indicated.