Worldwide Mareva Orders

• Author: David A. Crerar
• Pages: 180-184

CHAPTER

14

Worldwide

Mareva

Orders

A.

INTRODUCTION

Earlier

jurisprudence

held

that

courts

did

not

have

the

jurisdiction

to

order

a

Mareva

injunction

with

respect

to

assets

situated

outside

the

jurisdiction

of

the

court.

Zellers

Inc

v

Doobay

(i

989),

34

BCLR

(2d)

187

at

195

(SC)

It

is

now

well-established

that

where

appropriate

the

court

will

restrain

a

party

who

is

properly

subject

to

the

jurisdiction

of

the

court

from

transferring

or

dealing

with

any

of

her

assets,

including

assets

outside

of

the

jurisdiction,

where

necessary

to

prevent

the

party

from

frustrating

an

order

or

possible

future

order

of

the

court.

CH

v

MH,

1997

ABCA

263

at

paras

20,

24,

and

35-37

First

Majestic

Silver

v

Davila,

2014

BCCA

ii

at

para

35

Mooney

v

Orr

(No

1)

(1994),

98

BCLR

(2d)

318

at

para

12

(SC)

Talisman

Energy

v

Flo-Dynamics

Systems,

2015

ABQB

340

at

paras

22-33

SFC

Litigation

Trust

(Trustee

of)

v

Chan,

2017

ONSC

1815

Obégi

Chemicals

v

Kilani,

2011

ONSC

1636

at

para

101

Innovative

Marketing

v

D'Souza

(2007),

42

CPC

(6th)

328

at

paras

1

and

17

(SCJ

[Comm

List])

4463251

Canada

v

Duo-Regen

Technologies

Canada,

2011

QCCS

4043

at

para

21

Cloutier

c

Cloutier,

2010

QCCS

4270

at

para

n

When

a

court

issues

a

worldwide

Mareva

order,

it

is

not

attempt



ing

to

exercise

jurisdiction

in

foreign

territories.

Rather,

it

is

directing

the

defendant,

who

is

subject

to

its

jurisdiction,

not

to

dissipate

or

180