Introduction: Nature of Mareva Relief
| Author | David A. Crerar |
| Pages | 35-53 |
CHAPTER
2
Introduction:
Nature
of
Mareva
Relief
A.
GENERALLY
Through
a
Mareva
freezing
order,
a
court
can
restrain
a
party
that
is
properly
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
court
from
transferring
or
dealing
with
all
or
certain
assets,
including
assets
outside
of
the
juris
diction,
pending
a
future
order
of
the
court
or
final
determination
of
the
issues
between
the
parties.
A
Mareva
order
seeks
to
ensure
the
retention
of
sufficient
assets
so
that
the
plaintiff
will
not
be
left
with
a
hollow
judgment
if
success
ful
in
obtaining
judgment
against
the
defendant
at
trial.
Crosshair
Exploration
&
Mining
v
Universal
Uranium,
2010
BCSC
334
Equustek
Solutions
v
jack,
2012
BCSC
1490
at
para
31
Simonelli
vAyron
Developments,
2010
ABQB
565
at
para
97
Atlas
Copco
Canada
v
Hillier,
2011
ONSC
2277
at
para
57
The
basic
premise
of
a
Mareva
order
is
that
the
defendant
is
a
rogue
bent
on
flouting
the
process
of
the
court,
such
as
to
justify
the
exceptional
and
drastic
measure
of
freezing
the
defendant
’
s
assets
before
trial
and
before
judgment.
Sabourin
and
Sun
Group
of
Companies
v
Laiken,
2013
ONCA
530
at
para
53,
aff'd
(sub
nom
Carey
v
Laiken)
2015
SCC
17
Although
Mareva
orders
are
granted
on
the
plaintiff
’
s
application,
the
primary
function
of
a
freezing
order
is
maintaining
the
integrity
of
the
court
’
s
process.
35
36
•
Mareva
and
Anton
Piller
Preservation
Orders
in
Canada:
A
Practical
Guide
Grenzservice
Speditions
Ges
v
Jans
(1995),
15
BCLR
(3d)
370
at
395
(SC),
leave
to
appeal
refused,
[1996]
BCJ
No
980
(CA)
Equustek
Solutions
v
Jack,
2014
BCSC
1063
at
para
132
B.
AN
EXCEPTIONAL,
DRACONIAN
REMEDY
An
ex
parte
Mareva
order
is
an
exceptional
remedy,
first
developed
in
a
series
of
English
cases
as
an
exception
to
the
general
principles
against
execution
before
judgment.
Aetna
Financial
Services
v
Feigelman,
[1985]
i
SCR
2
at
para
17
(SCC)
Sekisui
House
Kabushiki
Kaisha
v
Nagashima
(1982),
42
BCLR
1
at
5
(Ont
CA)
Chitel
v
Rotbbart
(1982),
141
DLR
(3d)
268
at
287
(CA)
Simonelli
vAyron
Developments,
2010
ABQB
565
at
para
97
Stovicek
Estate
v
Napier
International
Technologies
(1995),
39
CPC
(3d)
351
at
para
13
(BCSC)
The
Mareva
order
is
an
“
exceptional,
”
“
drastic,
”
“
extraordinary,
”
“
harsh,
”
“
invasive,
”
and
“
draconian
”
remedy.
Aetna
Financial
Services
v
Feigelman,
[1985]
1
SCR
2
at
paras
8,27,30,38,41,
and
43
United
States
of
America
v
Yemec
(2005),
75
OR
(3d)
52
at
para
11
(Div
Ct)
Coast
Spas
(US)
v
Berry,
2002
BCSC
656
at
para
43
Brigham
v
Oralife
Group,
[1999]
OJ
No
961
at
para
34
(Gen
Div)
Stovicek
Estate
v
Napier
International
Technologies
(1995),
39
CPC
(3d)
351
at
para
13
(BCSC)
Green
v
Jernigan,
2003
BCSC
1097
at
paras
25
and
32
Pugliese
vArcuri,
2
on
ONSC
3157
at
para
18
Musson
Cattell
Mackey
Partnership
Architects
Designers
Planners
v
Maki,
2014
BCSC
2439
at
para
14
MFC
Structures
v
Mady
Collier
Centre,
2015
ONSC
2111
at
para
18
BKB
Construction
v
PT
Pelita
Cengkareng
Paper,
2
on
BCSC
1805
at
paras
24,
26,
and
31
Ala
v
Nutriview
Systems,
2011
BCSC
1033
at
para
11,
aff'd
2011
BCCA
389
Netolitzky
v
Barclay,
2002
BCSC
1098
at
paras
22
and
24
Ryan
v
Yakubov,
2014
NSSC
54
at
para
26
Kingston
v
GMA
Cover,
2012
ONSC
5019
at
paras
63
&
64
Mareva
and
Anton
Piller
orders
represent
“
an
extraordinary
assump
tion
of
power
by
the
judiciary,
”
and
“
therefore
judges
must
be
prudent
and
cautious
in
their
issue.
”
“
Great
unfairness
may
be
occasioned,
and
the
administration
of
justice
brought
into
disrepute,
by
an
order
which
impounds
assets
before
the
merits
of
the
claim
are
decided.
”
To continue reading
Request your trial