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

Winning a lawsuit means little if the person who owes you has quietly moved their money offshore, transferred the house to a relative, or emptied the business bank account before judgment is ever entered. A mareva injunction — sometimes called a freezing order or asset preservation order — is the tool Ontario courts use to stop that from happening.

It is one of the most powerful orders a civil court can grant, and for that reason it is also one of the hardest to obtain. This article explains what a mareva injunction does, when a court will consider granting one, and what a plaintiff needs to show.

What a Mareva Injunction Actually Does

A mareva injunction does not give you the defendant's money. It does not transfer ownership of anything to you, and it is not a form of pre-judgment seizure. Instead, it is a court order restraining the defendant from dissipating, hiding, or moving specific assets — often bank accounts, real estate, or business assets — while the underlying lawsuit is still being decided.

Think of it as a legal freeze, not a legal grab. The assets stay where they are (or are restrained from moving) so that, if you eventually win, there is still something left to collect against. Without that protection, a defendant determined to avoid paying could simply strip themselves of assets long before trial, leaving a plaintiff with a judgment on paper and nothing to enforce it against.

Why Courts Are Cautious About Granting One

Ontario courts treat mareva injunctions as an extraordinary remedy, not a routine step in litigation. Freezing someone's assets before they have been found liable for anything is a serious interference with their property and their ability to run a business or pay ordinary bills. Courts are alert to the risk that a plaintiff could use a freezing order as a pressure tactic rather than a genuine protective measure.

Because of that, the bar to obtain one is deliberately high. A plaintiff cannot get a mareva injunction simply by asserting that the defendant "might" move money — they need concrete, credible evidence.

What a Plaintiff Generally Needs to Show

While the exact framing can vary by case, Ontario courts generally look for the plaintiff to establish several things before granting a freezing order:

• A strong, arguable case on the merits. This is not a preliminary screening exercise — the plaintiff needs to show the underlying claim has real substance.
• A real risk of dissipation. There must be credible evidence — not mere suspicion — that the defendant is likely to move, hide, or dispose of assets specifically to defeat a future judgment, rather than simply managing their affairs in the ordinary course.
• That damages would not be an adequate remedy. If the defendant is clearly solvent and unlikely to move assets, a court is far less likely to intervene before trial.
• Balance of convenience favours the order. The harm to the plaintiff of not granting the freeze must outweigh the harm to the defendant of having their assets restrained before liability is even decided.

Courts will also weigh the plaintiff's own conduct — freezing orders sought urgently, without full and honest disclosure of the weaknesses in the plaintiff's case, tend to be set aside later even if initially granted.

How the Process Typically Unfolds

1. The claim is prepared or already underway. A mareva injunction is a remedy sought within an existing or about-to-be-filed civil action — it is not a standalone proceeding.
2. An urgent motion is brought, often without advance notice to the defendant (called "without notice" or "ex parte"), because telling the defendant in advance would defeat the entire purpose — they could simply move the assets before the hearing.
3. Full and frank disclosure is required. Because the defendant is not present to tell their side, the plaintiff has a heightened duty to disclose everything relevant to the judge, including facts that might hurt their own case.
4. If granted, the order is time-limited and typically comes back before the court on short order so the defendant can be heard and argue for the freeze to be lifted or narrowed.
5. The plaintiff is usually required to give an undertaking as to damages — a promise to compensate the defendant for losses caused by the freeze if it later turns out the order should not have been granted.

What a Mareva Injunction Is Not

It helps to be clear about what this remedy does not do:

• It does not decide who wins the underlying lawsuit.
• It does not guarantee you will ultimately recover money — it only preserves the possibility.
• It is not a routine or easily obtained order; courts reserve it for cases with genuine evidence of a flight risk to assets.
• It is different from a Certificate of Pending Litigation, which is registered against a specific piece of real property when the lawsuit itself claims an interest in that property — a mareva injunction can reach a broader range of assets but requires a different, more demanding evidentiary showing.

Frequently asked questions