Mareva Injunctions in Ontario: Freezing a Defendant's Assets Before Trial

Winning a lawsuit is only useful if there is something left to collect once you win. If you suspect a defendant is about to sell property, drain a bank account, or move money out of the country before your case is even heard, waiting for a trial judgment could leave you holding a worthless piece of paper. This is the problem a Mareva injunction — often called a freezing order — is designed to solve.

A Mareva injunction is one of the most powerful tools in Ontario civil litigation, and also one of the hardest to obtain. Courts do not grant it lightly, because it restrains someone's property before they have been found liable for anything. This article explains what a Mareva injunction does, when Ontario courts will consider granting one, and what a plaintiff typically needs to show.

What a Mareva Injunction Actually Does

A Mareva injunction is a court order that prevents a defendant from removing assets from the jurisdiction, or from dissipating, hiding, or dealing with assets in a way that would defeat a future judgment. It does not give the plaintiff the money. It does not decide who is right. It simply freezes the status quo so that if the plaintiff eventually wins, there is still something to enforce against.

Because it is such an intrusive remedy — it can freeze bank accounts, block property transactions, and restrict a person's ordinary financial life — it sits in the category of interlocutory (temporary) injunctions, which Ontario courts treat as an extraordinary remedy available only in limited circumstances.

Why Courts Are Cautious

An injunction obtained before trial, on the plaintiff's version of events alone, carries real risk of unfairness to the defendant. The defendant has not yet had a chance to defend the claim, and a freezing order can seriously disrupt a business or personal finances. For that reason, Ontario courts apply a demanding, multi-part test before granting any interlocutory injunction, including whether the plaintiff would suffer harm that money damages later could not adequately fix.

A Mareva injunction adds an extra layer on top of the general injunction test: the plaintiff typically also has to show a real risk that the defendant will dissipate or move assets specifically to avoid a judgment — not just that the defendant has money and might lose the case.

What a Plaintiff Generally Needs to Show

While the exact framework is judge-made and fact-specific, the kinds of things a plaintiff typically needs to establish include:

• A strong, arguable case on the merits. This is not a formality — courts expect a genuinely compelling claim, not just a plausible one.
• Evidence of a real risk of dissipation. Vague suspicion that a defendant "might" move money is not enough. Courts look for concrete indicators — unusual transfers, undisclosed offshore accounts, a pattern of moving assets to third parties, or specific statements suggesting an intent to frustrate collection.
• That damages alone would not be an adequate remedy. If the defendant is clearly solvent and the assets at risk are not the only source of eventual recovery, a court may be less inclined to intervene.
• A balance of convenience favouring the freeze. The harm to the plaintiff from doing nothing must outweigh the harm to the defendant (and any third parties, like banks) from the order.

Because these applications are often made urgently and sometimes without notifying the defendant in advance (an "ex parte" application), the plaintiff also has a heightened duty of full and frank disclosure — you must tell the court about weaknesses in your case and facts that might favour the defendant, not just your best evidence.

The Process, in Broad Strokes

1. Assess urgency and evidence. A lawyer reviews whether there is enough concrete evidence of dissipation risk to justify the application, and whether the underlying claim is strong enough to support it.
2. Prepare a motion record. This includes a sworn affidavit setting out the facts, the risk of dissipation, and — critically — full disclosure of anything unfavourable to the plaintiff's position.
3. Bring the motion before a Superior Court of Justice judge. Depending on urgency, this may happen with or without advance notice to the defendant.
4. Comply with an undertaking as to damages. A plaintiff seeking a freezing order is usually required to promise the court it will compensate the defendant for losses caused by the injunction if the plaintiff ultimately loses the underlying case.
5. Serve and enforce the order. Once granted, the order is typically served on the defendant and, where relevant, on banks or other institutions holding the frozen assets.
6. Proceed with the underlying claim. The injunction does not replace the lawsuit — the case still has to be argued and proven on its merits.

Alternatives and Related Tools

A Mareva injunction is not the only way to protect a future recovery. Depending on the situation, other options may fit better:

• A Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) can be registered against title to real property when the lawsuit claims an interest in that specific property, effectively blocking a sale or refinancing until the dispute resolves.
• A garnishment or writ of seizure and sale becomes available only after judgment, so they do not help with a pre-trial dissipation risk.
• Ordinary settlement leverage — sometimes the mere threat of a well-supported freezing application encourages a defendant to negotiate rather than risk the disruption of one being granted.

A lawyer can help assess which remedy actually fits the risk you are facing, since applying for the wrong one can waste time and money without solving the underlying problem.

Frequently asked questions