What is the test for determining whether there is a genuine risk of the disappearance of assets?

For example, Melvin J., in Alers-Hankey v. Solomon, unreported, [1994] B.C.J. No. 1201 (B.C.S.C.) found that "there should be evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the purpose for the removal of assets is to defeat a potential claim". In that case he found that there was not a "genuine risk of disappearance of assets" but a "genuine utilization of assets".

Similarly, Huddart J., as she then was, held in Grenzservice Speditions v. Jans (1995), 1995 CanLII 2507 (BC SC), 15 B.C.L.R. (3d) 370 at p. 379 that: A mareva injunction is not execution before judgment or a remedy in rem. It is granted to prevent dissipation of assets or their secretion or removal from the jurisdiction to avoid judgment, not to prevent their reasonable use in the ordinary course of a person's life or business.

Spencer J., in Girocredit Bank v. Bader (6 March 1996) Vancouver, C960848 (B.C.S.C.) found that the transferring of assets by the defendants in that case was not something which the defendants resorted to only after the fraud in which they were accused of having participated was discovered, and that this fact placed the appropriateness of the mareva injunction in a different light.