More cases reaching judgment during notice period

More cases reaching judgment during notice period

December 31, 2007

A Mareva injunction can be a powerful tool, especially in fraud matters when a court finds sufficient evidence that an asset might be liquidated, even if it is ultimately determined at trial that no wrongdoing had occurred, Toronto litigator Joel Watson tells Law Times.

Like an Anton Piller order, a Mareva injunction is an extreme order of the court; an execution of one’s property before trial, explains Watson, partner with Shibley Righton LLP.

As Law Times reports, a Toronto real estate lawyer, found by a Law Society of Upper Canada disciplinary tribunal in 2012 to have improperly abdicated his responsibilities to his real estate clients, has successfully extended a Mareva injunction against a real estate agent allegedly involved in the matter.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling was handed down late last year, making use of what some say is an infrequent measure to bar the real estate agent from transferring or otherwise dealing with seven listed properties without written consent of the real estate lawyer or leave of the court, the article says.

Watson says in the article that the injunction and process to this point is likely an attempt by the lawyer to mitigate his role in his disciplinary matter. 

“[The judges] were convinced that there’s something going on here, something worth keeping the property from being disposed because, once it’s gone, the plaintiff would be left with nothing more than a paper judgment.”

This story also appeared on advocatedaily.com and LawTimesnews.com