“The jurisdiction of the Superior Court to grant an interlocutory injunction is found under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act. A Mareva injunction is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy, one only granted when very strict terms are met. As Favreau J. explained in Paveau v. Ferreira, 2018 ONSC 1573:
46 A Mareva injunction is available to freeze the defendants’ assets where there is a risk that the assets will be moved or dissipated to avoid judgment. It has been described as a “drastic and extraordinary”. It is recognized as extraordinary relief because the courts do not generally grant judgment before a determination of the merits of a claim [References omitted].
The test for granting a Mareva injunction is stricter than the one for an ordinary injunction. That test is explained and described by Perell J. in O2 Electronics Inc. v. Sualim, 2014 ONSC 5050 at para. 67 as follows:
67 Because procedural law disfavours pre-judgment execution, to obtain a Mareva injunction, a plaintiff must satisfy the normal criteria for an injunction and also several additional criteria. For a Mareva injunction, the moving party must establish: (1) a strong prima facie case; (2) that the defendant has assets in the jurisdiction; and (3) that there is a serious risk that the defendant will remove property or dissipate assets before the judgment. A Mareva injunction should be issued only if it is shown that the defendant’s purpose is to remove his or her assets from the jurisdiction to avoid judgment. The moving party must also establish that he or she would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted and that the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction. Absent unusual circumstances, the plaintiff must provide the undertaking as to damages normally required for any interlocutory injunction.”