In a family property proceeding, certain added foreign respondents moved to set aside interlocutory worldwide Mareva and preservation orders on the basis that they were foreign parties with no sufficient connection to Ontario.
The court held that the respondent spouse's allegations of trust ownership, asset diversion, and risk of dissipation remained substantively unanswered, and that equity favoured preserving the disputed assets pending adjudication of equalization and support claims.
The court found that concerns about comity and practical enforceability did not bar continuation of the orders, particularly given the parallel Florida proceeding and the applicant spouse's invocation of the Ontario court's jurisdiction.
The motion was dismissed and the prior injunctive orders remained in place.
