This test is, as Justice Davies highlights, less stringent to obtain an IPO under the Act than that for other interlocutory court orders aiming to preserve property. The s. 8(5) test stands in contrast to the general test for an injunction, for example, which requires not only that the applicant establish a serious question to be tried, but that they establish irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted and show that the balance of convenience as between the parties weighs in favour of the injunction: R.J.R. MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. For Mareva injunctions specifically, the plaintiff must establish not just a serious question but a strong prima facie case, or “good arguable case”: Tracy v. Instaloans Financial Solutions Centres (B.C.) Ltd., 2007 BCCA 481 at para. 54. Further, recall that s. 9(1) of the Act specifically permits IPOs to be obtained ex parte.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.