The Established Rule
Lister v. Stubbs and policy of no execution before judgment
-
A person’s property cannot be seized prior to judgment.
Exceptions:
-
R. 10-1 BCSC Rule: where property is actually the subject matter of the dispute you can get a pre-trial order to freeze assets.
-
E.g. action over who owns the car
-
Note: Mareva covers different assets – not related to dispute, but needed to satisfy a judgment.
Problems: globalization, flags of convenience, corporate shells, international banking.
-
Concern that a losing ∆ will be able to defeat a judgment by transferring all assets out of jurisdiction before judgment comes down.
Lord Denning to the Rescue – Mareva
Significant law reform.
There were some Mareva-type orders granted before this case, but this is the leading/first fully reported case.
Mareva v. Int’l Bulk Carriers
-
Denning takes a step forward: used to think you couldn’t seize assets before judgment, but in some situations courts have jurisdiction to do that.
-
Finds this power in the Judicature Act (our Law and Equity Act) – reflects inherent jurisdiction of court to grant orders they think just and convenient.
-
Cites Beddow v. Beddow in support of the inherent jurisdiction to create these new orders.
Discussion: J Act goes back to 1850 – how did it take until 1970s to figure out this power?
-
Aus Judge: seems unlikely that [this right] should have been slumbering for over a century
George Jessel in Beddow:
-
Denning = reformer. Jessel = classic black letter lawyer, very focused on precedent and not progressive.
-
Denning actually cut off the end of Jessel’s sentence: “I have pwr to grant injunc in any case where right and just to do so according to sufficient legal reasons and only on settled legal principles.
Principles:
The Reception in Canada: Aetna
There was a gradual and uneven adoption by provincial courts until a cautious adoption by the SCC in Aetna.
These orders are prone to exploitation, dangerous for ∆s threshold is high.
-
Emphasis on the draconian nature of the remedy and the concern for risk-balancing.
-
Cyanamid rule does not apply in the case of Mareva injunctions.
Criteria
-
Strength of case
-
Risk of asset removal/dissipation – mere movement of assets insufficient – must be evidence of effort to defeat claim/judgment (sort of – sometimes courts are flexible on this)
-
Risk of insolvency not sufficient – not about simple security and does not alter priorities
-
Just because you may not be able to collect on your judgment, you don’t get to jump the creditor queue.
-
Balance of convenience
-
e.g. chattels, cont’d business dealings [see Rasu]66
-
It’s always open to ∆ to tell their sad story and convince a court they’d be subjected to undue hardship [Rasu].
-
Note: orders are granted ex parte, but order generally allows ∆ to return to court w/in a few days to present arguments.
Jurisdiction
The concept means national jurisdiction – typically won’t cover interprovincial transactions.
You don’t need to have another trial in Ontario to get assets ∆ has moved there. You just register your judgment there, it’s not that difficult.
So, SCC in Aetna says we typically won’t grant Mareva injunctions for inter-provincial asset transfers [But see Southin J in Gateway Village]67
Court needs jurisdiction over ∆.
Issue: once they have that, can they make orders about ∆’s property outside of Canada?
-
Conceptually, they don’t have jurisdiction over the property outside country, but they can order the person.
-
It’s possible to get worldwide injunctions, but only in extreme cases [see Mooney v. Orr]68
Protections for ∆
These injunctions are super intrusive/burdensome.
Courts try to even the playing field.
Undertakings – if freezes ∆ assets for 2 years and ∆ bus goes bankrupt and then ∆ prevails at trial, will be liable for the loss.
Full disclosure
-
Because it’s ex parte, lawyer applying must ensure judge is fully apprised of what the other side’s case may be if you know facts that court would want to know, but your client hasn’t put into their affidavit, you have to find a way to tell the court why your case might not be as strong as your client says it is. Full disclosure of the facts are necessary.
-
Just try to ensure that if your client has those facts, they disclose them.
Early return as described above. Can go back to court w/in a few days to argue.
Third parties
Third parties are bound if given notice of the order [see Z Ltd. v. A-Z]
Distinction: technically not bound as parties to the order, but anyone w/ knowledge of a court order ≠ breach or in contempt
3rd parties are usually banks.
They have to do searches, but no disclosure to
So, they have to go into the accounts and find out what kind of assets of ∆ are in their control but don’t have to tell that.
’s undertaking covers the cost to 3rd parties of complying w/ the Mareva injunction.
Notice to third parties will typically carve out things that the bank is allowed to do
May meet its own obligations (e.g. pay charges on letter of credit, bank guarantee, credit card)
Share with your friends: |