Inference Of Dissipation Not Automatic When Considering Suitability Of Mareva Injunction

Introduction

In fraud claims, plaintiffs are often concerned that defendants will dissipate assets beyond the court's reach. While the Mareva injunction, which freezes assets, is a useful (and, sometimes, essential) tool, the legal bar remains exceptionally high. Although plaintiffs need not prove that a defendant is actively dissipating assets to secure a Mareva, courts will not infer a risk of dissipation automatically. As the recent decision in Hao Chen et al. v. Masih Moazen-Safaei, 2025 ONSC 3098 (CanLII) explains, it is not enough to show a strong prima case of fraud. Courts must employ a contextual analysis, considering the nature and circumstances of the alleged fraud, before dissipation can be inferred.