“In Cardinal Meat Specialists Ltd. v. Zies Foods Inc., 2014 ONSC 1107, Ricchetti J., in addressing the requirements of a Mareva injunction, wrote the following at paras. 50 and 51:
There are five requirements for a Mareva injunction:
(a) the plaintiff must make full and frank disclosure of all material matters within his or her knowledge;
(b) the plaintiff must give particulars of the claim against the defendant, stating the grounds of the claim and the amount thereof, and the points that could be fairly made against it by the defendant;
(c) the plaintiff must give grounds for believing that the defendant has assets in the jurisdiction;
(d) the plaintiff must give grounds for believing that there is a real risk of the assets being removed out of the jurisdiction, or disposed of within the jurisdiction or otherwise dealt with so that the plaintiff will be unable to satisfy a judgment awarded to him or her; and
(e) the plaintiff must give an undertaking as to damages.
A Mareva injunction grants the plaintiff a far reaching remedy and causes financial upheaval to the defendant(s) by tying up assets indefinitely, before the plaintiff’s claim has been determined on its merits. I recognize that a Mareva injunction should only be granted in exceptional and limited circumstances. See: Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman, 1985 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 2.”