Case information

Civil procedure — Mareva injunction — Anton Piller order — Application to set aside — How should courts decide whether a party’s non-disclosure at an ex parte hearing for a Mareva order or Anton Piller order is material — If the non-disclosure is material, how should courts decide whether to exercise their discretion to maintain or re-issue the order despite the material non-disclosure?

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.

Atom Holdings was a Cayman Islands-based cryptocurrency holding company for a number of internationally incorporated subsidiary companies (the AAX Group), which operated a cryptocurrency exchange platform. Mr. Su is alleged to have diverted cryptocurrencies from the AAX Group. The respondents have initiated court proceedings in various jurisdictions to recover assets. In British Columbia, they initiated bankruptcy proceedings and a civil action against Mr. Su. As part of these proceedings, they obtained several orders ex parte, including an Anton Piller order and a Mareva injunction.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Mr. Su’s applications to set aside the Anton Piller and the Mareva orders, and granted the respondents’ application to extend the Mareva injunction. The British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr. Su’s appeal. The court held that he had not identified any extricable error of law or principle with the chambers judge’s decision; that the judge understood and applied the relevant legal standard for determining materiality; and that the judge’s discretionary decision to maintain the orders is owed deference.