“A Mareva injunction is an extraordinary remedy because it constitutes a form of pre-trial execution. In Aetna Financial Services Inc. v. Feigelman, 1985 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2, the Supreme Court of Canada cautioned that the imposition of such a remedy can be harsh and care must be taken to ensure that its use is not a form of “litigious blackmail”. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Chitel v. Rothbart (1982), 1982 CanLII 1956 (ON CA), 141 D.L.R. (3d) 268 held that Mareva injunctions are the exceptions to the rule.
The requirements for a Mareva injunction are as follows:
-
-
-
- The moving party should make full and frank disclosure of all matters in his knowledge which are material for the judge to know;
- The moving party should give particulars of his claim against the defendant/respondent, stating the ground of his claim and the amount thereof, and fairly stating the points made against it by the defendant/respondent;
- The moving party should give some grounds for believing that there is a risk of the assets being removed before the judgment or award is satisfied;
- The moving party must, of course, give an undertaking in damages;
- The moving party should give some grounds for believing that the defendant/respondent has some assets here: Third Chandris Shipping Corp. v. Unimarine S.A., [1979], Q.B. 645 (Eng. C.A.); Chitel.”
-
-