Legal Blog

Divisional Court Overturns Decision and Grants Mareva Injunction

2092280 Ontario Inc. v. Voralto Group Inc. 2018 Ont SCJ

Plaintiffs moved without notice for a Mareva injunction after introducing evidence of the fraudulent activity of the defendants. The motions judge declined to give the injunction without notice and instead noted that the defendants had to be served with the notice of the motion for the injunction. The Divisional Court overturned that decision and granted the injunction. It noted that the plaintiffs were not required to adduce direct evidence showing that the defendants would actively dissipate their assets. A serious risk of dissipation is sufficient and that risk may be inferred by the surrounding circumstances of the fraud. The court noted that a Mareva injunction was an important tool to recover losses from fraud or theft and notification of the injunction request would significantly water down the remedy.

Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.