In Canada, Mareva injunctions remain among the most effective tools for securing the enforcement of judgments in civil disputes. No longer confined to cases of obvious fraud, modern Canadian law views these injunctions through a pragmatic and flexible lens, particularly in cross-border disputes where assets may easily be dissipated. The British Columbia Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Pangaea Resources Limited v. Harder, 2024 BCCA 286, illustrates this evolving jurisprudence and highlights the potential breadth of Mareva relief.
The plaintiff, a Canadian investor, had advanced millions of dollars through informal loans and investments to European-based individuals and their associated companies operating in Belize, Malaysia, and Canada. With little documentation or security in place, the investor eventually encountered repayment delays and learned of undisclosed share dispositions. He sought and obtained a Mareva injunction in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, freezing various assets and requiring disclosure of holdings.
On appeal, the defendants argued that the injunction lacked a proper foundation, that no strong prima facie case existed, and that the order improperly extended to non-parties. The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, affirming that a Mareva injunction may be granted pre-judgment where a strong prima facie case and risk of dissipation are established. The Court also confirmed that such injunctions can extend to non-parties and corporate entities controlled by wrongdoers, when necessary to secure enforcement of future judgments, and may apply to assets held outside British Columbia.
The decision is a clear warning to third parties: the court’s reach under a Mareva injunction can be broad, encompassing both related entities and foreign-held assets. However, this power is balanced by judicial caution—ensuring that such extraordinary relief is carefully scrutinized before being granted.