Case information

Injunctions — Mareva injunctions — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in restoring the Mareva injunction — Whether it was unjust not to forfeit the respondent’s privilege to the Mareva injunction after abusing and misleading the court’s decision — Whether this case raises an issue of importance to the profession as a whole.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The respondent brought an action against the applicant and his company for damages flowing from the loss of investment monies she had provided to them. She alleged that they had invested her money in the stock of a single company that subsequently went bankrupt. Following a trial, the respondent was awarded judgment in the amount of $1,259,484.52. The trial judge concluded that the applicant and his company had been negligent and breached their fiduciary duty to the respondent.

Immediately following the judgment and before the order after trial could be entered and registered, the applicant and his wife filed for divorce. The applicant’s wife sought an unequal division of family property which included their jointly owned home and the applicant did not oppose. The property was sold. The respondent commenced a second action alleging that various transfers were of no force and effect. The respondent successfully brought a without notice application for a Mareva injunction to prevent the applicant from disposing or diminishing the value of any of his assets. The injunction was later set aside. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and with some qualifications restored the Mareva injunction.