The applicants brought a motion to continue a Mareva injunction that had been granted ex parte by Justice Mathai on May 16, 2025.
The injunction was sought in connection with an alleged fraudulent conveyance of a commercial property (the Upper James Property) and a breach of an agreement for purchase and sale.
The respondent provided evidence explaining the business rationale for the property transfer and subsequent sale, including financing constraints and the need to relocate the business to a more affordable location.
The court found that the respondent's evidence, if accepted, demonstrated that the transactions were not motivated by asset dissipation or an intent to avoid judgment.
The court discontinued the Mareva injunction, finding no compelling evidence of fraudulent conveyance and noting the significant hardship the injunction was causing to the respondent's business and family.
