• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Background Image
Logo Bennett Jones
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Resources
  • Search
  • Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All

FEATURED AREAS

Energy
Funds & Finance
Mining
Capital Projects
All Industries
Crisis & Risk Management
Environmental, Social & Governance
Governmental Affairs & Public Policy
All Practices
Insights
Media
Events
Subscribe
COVID-19 Resource Centre
Business Law Talks Podcast
Kickstart
New Energy Economy Series
People
Featured Areas
All Practices
All Industries
About
Offices
Careers
Insights
Events
Search
Search
 
Blog

Is the Test for Mareva Injunctions/Freezing Orders Too Stringent?

February 13, 2018

Written by Jim Schmidt

An important pre-trial remedy in cases of fraud is the Mareva injunction, now more commonly called a “freezing order”. This remedy, in simple terms, allows the victim of a fraud, as a plaintiff in the civil courts, to prevent the defendant (the alleged fraudster) from disposing of or dealing with his or her assets, except under strict conditions.

The test used by the courts to determine whether to issue a freezing order varies to some extent from province to province, partly as a consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada not having comprehensively opined on freezing orders since the mid-1980’s in Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, 1985 CanLii 55 (SCC).

In Alberta and Ontario, the test for a freezing order—consistent with the Aetna case from 1985—requires, among other things, that the plaintiff demonstrate, as to the merits of the fraud claim, a “strong prima facie case”.

Last week, in R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., 2018 SCC 5, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada concluded, in a case involving so-called “mandatory” pre-trial injunctions, that a strong prima facie case means a “strong likelihood”, on the law and the evidence, that the plaintiff will be successful at trial in proving the allegations made against the defendant.

Applied to a request for a freezing order, usually brought in exigent circumstances when all the evidence has not been fully developed, this means that a plaintiff must show a strong likelihood that it will be successful at trial in proving the defendant committed a fraud.

Does the Law Need to be Revisited?

The Aetna case was decided over 30 years ago when freezing orders were a relatively new development in the law. Today, with rapid globalization, and fast-paced, transnational frauds being committed, one may question whether it is reasonable to expect a plaintiff to show that, not only will it likely succeed against the defendant at trial, but that the likelihood is strong.

Perhaps the better formulation of the requirement is the English one (coming from the jurisdiction where freezing orders were first recognized and developed). In Linsen International Ltd. v. Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd., [2011] EWHC 2339 (Comm) at para 5, the court confirmed the continuing English position that an applicant for a freezing order need only establish—as to the merits of its claim—a “good arguable case”, i.e., one that is capable of serious argument, although not necessarily one that the judge would consider has a better than 50 percent chance of succeeding at trial.

Author

  • Jim  Schmidt Jim Schmidt, Partner

Read the New Energy Economy Series

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

Words Matter, Even When Absent: B.C. Appeal Court [...]

March 04, 2021
       

Blog

The Rise of ESG Bonds in Corporate Financing

March 02, 2021
       

Blog

Another Reminder of the Low Bar for Class Action Certification [...]

March 01, 2021
       

Blog

Are Gun Manufacturers Liable for Mass Shootings?

March 01, 2021
       

Blog

Evidence of Harm Required To Advance Class Action Following Data Breach

February 24, 2021
       

The firm that businesses trust with their most complex legal matters.

  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use

© Bennett Jones LLP 2021. All rights reserved. Bennett Jones refers collectively to the Canadian legal practice of Bennett Jones LLP and the international legal practices and consulting activities of various entities which are associated with Bennett Jones LLP

Logo Bennett Jones