We find the motions Judge did not consider the relevant test for determining whether a Mareva injunction should be granted. Had she done so, we are of the view that there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate a strong prima facie case nor was there evidence that there was a real risk that Silverwoods would remove assets from the jurisdiction or was disposing of or dissipating assets in a manner clearly distinct from the ordinary course of business or for the purpose of avoiding the possibility of judgment: See Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman 1985 CanLII 55 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2.
"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.