2 total
Mareva injunction set aside; no evidence of asset dissipation.
The defendant moved to set aside a previously granted Mareva injunction that had frozen the proceeds from the sale of his home in a civil action arising from an alleged assault.
The plaintiffs had obtained the injunction ex parte based on concerns that the defendant would dissipate assets and frustrate enforcement of any damages award.
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant was removing assets from the jurisdiction or dissipating them outside the ordinary course of living.
Evidence showed the defendant had listed his home for sale because criminal bail conditions prevented him from living there and that he intended to purchase another residence.
Given the extraordinary nature of Mareva relief, the court concluded that continuation of the injunction was not justified and set it aside.
Sweat equity credits were options to acquire shares, not enforceable redemption rights.
A former employee and founding member of a coffee company and its related worker co‑operative sought damages for failure to redeem “sweat equity” credits earned through reduced cash wages.
The plaintiff alleged entitlement to redemption of Class B shares and pursued an oppression remedy under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, as well as relief under the Co‑operative Corporations Act.
The court held that the plaintiff’s sweat equity constituted an option or warrant to acquire shares rather than an existing shareholding, and that he had standing as a complainant but no entitlement to redemption.
The court found no oppressive conduct because the internal pay scale and resulting reduction of sweat equity value were adopted through a fair process in which the plaintiff participated.
The action was dismissed and the corporations were not required to redeem the sweat equity credits.
