2 total
Mareva injunction maintained where strong prima facie case and risk of asset dissipation shown.
The defendant brought a motion seeking dissolution of an ex parte Mareva injunction that prohibited dealings with several real estate properties.
The plaintiff alleged the defendant participated in fraud and conspiracy relating to real estate transactions and argued that there was a real risk the defendant would dissipate assets to avoid judgment.
The court reviewed evidence of multiple property sales, inconsistencies in the defendant’s affidavit evidence, and delays in cooperating with discovery.
Applying the test for Mareva relief, the court found the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case and a real risk of asset dissipation.
The court held that the criteria for maintaining the injunction were satisfied and dismissed the defendant’s motion.
Motion to quash appeal granted as the Master's note varying a counterclaim cap was interlocutory.
The defendant brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal to the Divisional Court.
The plaintiff had appealed a Master's note in the procedure book that varied the cap on the defendant's counterclaim from $26,572.54 to $364,447.73.
The court found that the Master's note was an interlocutory step, as the merits of the case remained to be determined and the Master had not issued a confirmed report.
Under section 71 of the Construction Lien Act, an appeal from an interlocutory order is forbidden.
The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.
