Superior Court of Justice — Ontario
Court File No.: CV-25-98833
Date: 2025-02-28
Between:
Sabrina Hached, Applicant
and
Sajed Humza Hussein, Respondent
Before: C. MacLeod RSJ
Counsel: Adam Strombergsson-DeNora, for the Applicant
Heard: February 28, 2025
Endorsement
Introduction
1This was an urgent Application for what was described as a Norwich order and a Mareva Injunction. These are extraordinary orders which are available in particular circumstances and may sometimes be obtained without notice. For the reasons that follow, such powerful and sweeping orders are not appropriate on the facts of this case and I decline to grant the relief.
Background
2The Applicant is a recent graduate of Carleton University and a business owner. According to her affidavit evidence, she first met the Respondent through the Tinder dating application and renewed her acquaintance in 2024 when she inquired about an iPhone he was advertising for sale on social media. Her affidavit discloses that over a period of time she was induced to invest her savings with the Respondent who misled her about his business and investing acumen and the nature of certain investments.
3It is the evidence of the Applicant that she invested a total of just under $35,000 and she has not been able to recover those funds or obtain an accounting from the Respondent. If the affidavit evidence is accurate, she was induced to place investments with the Respondent through a series of misrepresentations, outright lies and false promises. In short, she was defrauded of most of her savings.
4Importantly, however, for purposes of this hearing, the Applicant knows who the Respondent is, he resides in Ottawa, his mother resides in Ottawa and the investment funds were for the most part transferred by the Applicant to the Respondent’s bank account with the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Analysis
5A “Norwich order” is a form of pre-action equitable discovery in which an action is allowed against a third party solely for the purpose of discovering the identity of a wrongdoer. [1654776 Ontario Ltd. v. Stewart, 2013 ONCA 131] Normally, it is sought in an action (or application) against the party holding the information and while it is important that equitable remedies remain flexible, in this case the identity of the alleged wrongdoer is known, his whereabouts are known and the bank account into which the funds were transferred is also known. A Norwich order is not appropriate.
6Interlocutory injunctions, particularly on an ex parte basis, are available in specific circumstances where it is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties in pending litigation. Mareva injunctions are available where it appears a party has assets within the jurisdiction and may be in the process of dissipating those assets or putting them beyond the reach of the court. [Buduchnist Credit Union Limited v. 2321197 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCA 57, paras 45-49]
7While prima facie proof of fraud may be sufficient to infer that dissipation is likely, that is not sufficient to justify execution in advance of judgment unless the tests of irreparable harm and balance of convenience are also met. Here, where what is sought would be a monetary judgment within the limit of the Small Claims Court, damages are the only remedy that is available. A Mareva injunction is not justified on the evidence before the court.
8There are more surgical and targeted remedies available than the sweeping injunctive relief contained in the draft order. For example, if there is an identifiable fund whose ownership is in dispute or some risk that evidence may be destroyed, an order under Rule 45.01 or 45.02 may be available. In the instant case, however, the Applicant will be entitled to a monetary judgment if she is successful, and she will then have the usual remedies available to judgment creditors. There is no identifiable fund to be preserved as there might have been if the Respondent had invested the funds and was holding them in an investment account. Based on the evidence that the Respondent was demanding the Applicant bring him drugs and food at one point, this seems unlikely.
9There is a further consideration and that is proportionality. Without in any way diminishing the impact of losing $35,000 to an individual litigant such as the Applicant, bringing an ex parte injunction application followed by a motion on notice to continue the injunction and then a separate action for damages is almost certain to run up legal fees and costs in excess of the amount in dispute.
10Seeking a Norwich order and a Mareva injunction in support of a Small Claims action is an inherently expensive way to proceed. I would not suggest that these forms of relief should never be available, but the Applicant may be further ahead to simply sue the defendant, serve him and proceed with her action.
11There is no guarantee that the Respondent will not defend the action and of course there is no guarantee that a judgment can be easily enforced. But, even if I granted the remedies the Applicant is seeking, there is no guarantee the funds she invested are available to be preserved or frozen.
12Equitable remedies are necessary where legal remedies are insufficient. In this case, there is a straightforward route to pursue damages. Reliance on more exotic pre-action remedies is likely to be disproportionate and unnecessary.
Conclusion
13I sympathize with the situation the Applicant finds herself in. The use of dating apps and social media to target victims of fraud has become a veritable epidemic. I understand her need to recover her savings and her counsel’s hope for an instant fix. The court cannot, however, grant automatic ex parte orders freezing the bank accounts of alleged fraudsters in circumstances such as these.
14The Application is dismissed. I understand counsel is in the process of issuing a claim in Small Claims Court.
February 28, 2025
Notes
[1] See 1654776 Ontario Ltd. v. Stewart, 2013 ONCA 131
[2] See Buduchnist Credit Union Limited v. 2321197 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCA 57, paras 45-49
[3] I appreciate that one of the objectives of the proposed Norwich order was to find out how much was left in the Respondent’s bank account.
[4] See “Scam Inc.”, The Economist, Feb 8, 2025 for example.