Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 JANUARY 2018

Race To Judgment: Mareva Injunctions Do Not Give A Proprietary Interest In Affected Assets

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Contributor
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

With over 750 lawyers, intellectual property agents and other professionals, BLG services...

View firm profile
Explore more from Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

The motion judge held that the Mareva injunction did not give Trade Capital a proprietary interest in the funds, and the Court of Appeal agreed.

CanadaCriminal Law

In Trade Capital Finance Corp. v. Cook, 2018 ONCA 27, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that a Mareva injunction that had been granted and covered funds in an account does  prevent seizure of those same funds by another creditor.

The appellant, Trade Capital Finance Corp. ("Trade Capital"), obtained a Mareva injunction against various defendants, including The Cash House Inc. ("Cash House"), alleging that it had lost over $6 million in a fraudulent invoicing scheme.  Mareva injunctions, also known as freezing orders, are a form of interlocutory relief designed to preserve a defendant's assets until the plaintiff's claim can be determined.

In a separate and unrelated proceeding, Cash House was ordered to pay costs of over $120,000 to a third party, Maple Trust, when its action was dismissed.  Maple Trust had a writ of seizure and sale issued to collect its award and then moved to vary the Mareva injunction to permit it to seize the funds in an account held by

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from