Gisel Bettencourt

The plaintiff, an 81-year-old widow, brought a motion to continue and expand a Mareva injunction and obtain further Norwich orders against her deceased husband's former bookkeeper, who allegedly misappropriated funds.

The court continued the existing Mareva injunction freezing $185,000 related to the sale of a restaurant property, finding a strong prima facie case.

However, the court dismissed the request to expand the injunction to cover the sale of a farm property due to conflicting evidence.

The court also dismissed the request for further Norwich orders, noting the litigation was no longer at the pre-action stage, and ruled that much of the plaintiff's evidence, provided via a law clerk's affidavit, was inadmissible hearsay.

The applicant, an 81-year-old widow, brought an urgent motion for a Mareva injunction and a Norwich order against the respondent, who had acted as a bookkeeper for the applicant's late husband.

The applicant alleged that the respondent fraudulently transferred $235,567.90 from a joint bank account to her own accounts.

The court granted an interim freezing order over the respondent's bank accounts, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and a serious risk of dissipation.

The court also granted a Norwich order requiring the bank to disclose the respondent's account information to assist in tracing the funds.