Feigelman et al. v. Aetna Financial Services Ltd. et al., (1985) 32 Man.R.(2d) 241 (SCC)

• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 31, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1985), 32 Man.R.(2d) 241 (SCC)

Feigelman v. Aetna Financial (1985), 32 Man.R.(2d) 241 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Feigelman, Feigelman, Goldberg, R.L.L. Holdings Ltd. and Pre-Vue Company (Canada) Ltd. v. Aetna Financial Services Limited, Lax and Burke

Indexed As: Feigelman et al. v. Aetna Financial Services Ltd. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.

January 31, 1985.

Summary:

The plaintiff Pre-Vue was placed in receivership under a debenture by the defendant Aetna Financial Services, which was a federally incorporated lending institution operating and having assets in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Pre-Vue with its shareholders sued Aetna and others for unliquidated damages for Aetna's failure to give Pre-Vue notice of default under the debenture. Aetna realized assets from the receivership of another borrower. It intended to close its Manitoba operations and transfer the assets to Montreal. The plaintiffs applied for an injunction to restrain Aetna from removing the assets from Manitoba. The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment unreported in this series of reports granted an ex parte Mareva injunction, which Aetna moved to set aside.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench in a judgment unreported in this series of reports dismissed the motion, but varied the injunction, reducing the assets enjoined from removal. The plaintiffs appealed, seeking to vary the injunction; the defendants cross-appealed to set the injunction aside.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 19 Man.R.(2d) 295 dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal. The court, however, ordered that the injunction might be discharged, if Aetna posted sufficient security. Aetna appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction. The court reviewed the law of interlocutory injunctions and the preservation of property in the context of the general rule that there can be no execution before judgment and no judgment before trial. The court discussed the history and development of the Mareva injunction and set out the conditions for granting a Mareva injunction as it evolved in England. The court held that a defendant's exigible assets may only be frozen by a Mareva injunction if there is a genuine risk of disappearance of the assets by disposal inside or removal from the jurisdiction. In transposing the Mareva injunction to a federal state, such as Canada, removal of Aetna's assets from Manitoba to Quebec could not be considered removal from the jurisdiction, because a Manitoba judgment was enforceable in Quebec or Ontario, where Aetna had assets in any event. Accordingly, the injunction should not have been granted.

Injunctions - Topic 1612

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Mareva injunction - A Manitoba plaintiff obtained a Mareva injunction to restrain a federally incorporated company, which operated and owned assets in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, from removing assets from Manitoba to Quebec pending the outcome of the actions - The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the injunction, because it could not be considered that the assets were being removed from the jurisdiction, where any judgment the plaintiff might obtain in Manitoba was enforceable in Ontario or Quebec.

Injunctions - Topic 1612

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Mareva injunction - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the history and development of the law of preservation of property pending judgment and in particular discussed the development and current status of the Mareva injunction as an exception to the general rule that there can be no execution before judgment and no judgment before trial - The court held that a defendant's exigible assets may only be frozen by a Mareva injunction if there is a genuine risk of disappearance of assets by disposal inside or removal from the jurisdiction - In transposing the Mareva injunction from England to Canada, a federal state, the court held that removal of assets from Manitoba to Quebec could not be considered a removal from the jurisdiction, because a Manitoba judgment was enforceable in Quebec, so that a Mareva injunction preventing removal of assets from Manitoba to Quebec was inappropriate.

Practice - Topic 3378

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Mareva injunction - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a Mareva injunction was inappropriate to prevent removal of assets by a federally incorporated company from Manitoba to Quebec, because removal to Quebec could not be considered removal from the Manitoba jurisdiction, where a Manitoba judgment was enforceable in Quebec.

Practice - Topic 8804

Appeals - Duty of appeal court regarding discretionary orders - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted a Mareva injunction to a plaintiff to restrain the defendant from removing assets from Manitoba to Quebec - The Supreme Court of Canada set aside the injunction and held that the discretionary order of the Court of Queen's Bench could be interfered with, because the injunction was granted on the basis of a significant error of law - See paragraph 44.

Cases Noticed:

Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Co. v. Ball, [1953] O.R. 843, consd. [para. 7].

America Cynamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396, consd. [para. 7].

Law Society of Upper Canada v. MacNaughton et al., [1942] O.W.N. 551, consd. para. 7].

Lister & Co. v. Stubbs, [1886-90] All E.R. 797, consd. [para. 8].

Burdett v. Fader (1903), 6 O.L.R. 532, affd. 7 O.L.R. 72, consd. [para. 8].

Barclay-Johnson v. Yuill, [1980] 3 All E.R. 190, consd. [para. 8].

OSF Industries Ltd. v. Marc-Jay Investments Inc. (1978), 88 D.L.R.(3d) 446; 7 C.P.C. 57; 20 O.R.(2d) 566 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 8, 29].

Pivovaroff v. Chernabaeff et al. (1977), 16 S.A.S.R. 329, refd to. [para. 8].

Bedell v. Gefaell et al. (No. 2), [1938] O.R. 726 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Hepburn v. Patton (1879), 26 Gr. 597, refd to. [para. 8].

Pacific Investment Co. v. Swan (1898), 3 Terr. L. Rep. 125, refd to. [para. 8].

Ferguson v. Ferguson (1916), 26 Man. R. 269, refd to. [para. 8].

Great Western Railway Co. v. Birmingham & Oxford Junction Rwy. Co. et al. (1848), 2 Ph. 597; 41 E.R. 1074, consd. [para. 9].

Rosen et al. v. Pullen et al. (1981), 126 D.L.R.(3d) 62, consd. [para. 9].

Campbell v. Campbell (1881), 29 Gr. 252, consd. [para. 9].

City of Toronto v. McIntosh (1977), 16 O.R.(2d) 238 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 9].

Mills and Mills v. Petrovic (1980), 30 O.R.(2d) 238 (Ont. H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 9].

Aslatt v. The Corporation of Southampton (1880), 16 Ch. D. 143, consd. [para. 10].

Hawes v. Szewczyk, [1979] 2 A.C.W.S. 274, refd to. [paras. 13, 31].

DeBeers v. United States (1945), 325 U.S. 212, refd to. [para. 19].

Robinson v. Pickering (1881), 16 Ch. D. 660, refd to. [para. 21].

Bradley Bros. (Oshawa) Ltd. v. A to Z Rental Canada Ltd. (1970), 14 D.L.R.(3d) 171, consd. [para. 22].

Parmar Fisheries Ltd. v. Parceria Maritima Esperanca (1982), 53 N.S.R.(2d) 338; 109 A.P.R. 338; 141 D.L.R.(3d) 498, refd to. [para. 26].

Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. v. Atkin et al. (1981), 31 O.R.(2d) 751; 121 D.L.R.(3d) 160, refd to. [para. 26].

Rahman (Prince Abdul) v. Abu-Taha, [1980] 1 W.L.R. 1268, refd to. [para. 26].

A.J. Bekhor v. Bilton, [1981] 2 All E.R. 565; [1981] 2 W.L.R. 601, consd. [para. 26].

Z Ltd. v. A, [1982] 2 W.L.R. 288; [1982] 1 All E.R. 566, consd. [paras. 25, 26].

Cretanor Maritime Co. Ltd. v. Irish Marine Management Ltd., [1978] 1 W.L.R. 966, refd to. [para. 28].

Iraqi Ministry of Defence v. Arcepey Shipping Co. S.A., [1980] 2 W.L.R. 488, refd to. [para. 28].

Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. v. Hind (1981), 122 D.L.R.(3d) 498, consd. [para. 29].

Quinn v. Marsta Cessian Services Ltd. et al. (1981), 34 O.R.(2d) 659, consd. [para. 29].

Chitel v. Rothbart et al. (1983), 39 O.R.(2d) 513, consd. [para. 29].

Barclay-Johnson v. Yuill, [1980] 3 All E.R. 190, refd to. [para. 30].

Buragalia v. Humphreys (1982), 39 N.B.R.(2d) 674; 103 A.P.R. 674; 135 D.L.R.(3d) 535, consd. [para. 31].

Sekisui House Kabushiki Kaisha (Sekisui House Co. Ltd.) v. Nagashima and Nagashima (1982), 42 B.C.L.R. 1; 33 C.P.C. 42, consd. [para. 31].

BP Petroleum Exploration Ltd. v. Hunt, [1981] 1 W.W.R. 209; 23 A.R. 271; 114 D.L.R.(3d) 35, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Queen's Bench Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. C-280; C.C.S.M., c. C-280, sect. 59.

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, R.S.M. 1970, c. J-20; C.C.S.M., c. J-20 [para. 36].

Rules of Court (Man.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 330(1) [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 4, p. 166, para. 358 [para. 32]; vol. 24, p. 518, para. 918 [paras. 10, 24].

Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.), vol. 21, p. 348, para. 279 [para. 24].

Kerr on Injunctions (6th Ed. 1927), p. 6 [para. 24].

McAllister, Mareva Injunctions (1982), 28 C.P.C. 1 [para. 33].

Rogers and Hately, Getting the Pre-Trial Injunction (1982), 60 Can. Bar Rev. 1 [para. 33].

Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance (1983), pp. 94-97 [para. 9].

Stockwood, Mareva Injunctions (1981), 3 Advocates Q. 85 [para. 33].

Counsel:

D'Arcy McCaffrey, Q.C., for the appellant;

W.P. Riley, Q.C., and Peter Sim, for the respondent.

This case was heard on September 26, 1983, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On January 31, 1985, Estey, J., delivered the following judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada, in which Ritchie, J., did not take part: