“The applicant relies upon the Mareva Order to enjoin the property in the hands of the other Aarabi Family and Affiliates, who are strangers to the family law proceeding and whose assets are not subject to preservation under ss. 12 and 40 of the FLA.
The test for a Mareva injunction is well settled, and most often cited in the case of Chitel et al. v. Rothbart et al., (1982) 1982 CanLII 1956 (ON CA), 39 O.R. (2d) 513. It is more stringent than the test for a preservation order under the FLA. The requirements that the applicant must establish are that:
a. she has a strong prima faciecase;
b. the respondents have assets in the jurisdiction;
c. there is a serious risk that the respondents will remove their property or dissipate assets before judgment.
See O2 Electronics Inc. v. Sualim, 2014 ONSC 5050, at para. 67 and Ghaeinizadeh v. Ku De Ta Capital Inc, 2010 ONSC 4169, [2010] O.J. No. 3217 (S.C.).
The applicant also must establish that she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted and that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. See Lee, at para. 43. This is often tied into the assessment of risk of the removal or dissipation of assets before judgment.”