Asset Preservation and Mareva Injunctions

Mareva Relief, Freezing Orders & Asset Preservation Strategy

PREMIUM LEGAL SERVICES

Experienced. Aggressive. Client-Centered

Get Started

Successful Litigation Cases Handled

0 +

Litigation, Mediation, Trial - Focused

0 %

Years of Combined Legal Experience

0 +

In Handling Complicated Disputes

0 *

Why You Need Legal Help with Asset Preservation and Mareva Injunctions

In serious commercial litigation, the central question is often not whether liability can ultimately be proven, but whether anything will remain to recover by the time judgment arrives. Where there is a real risk that funds, property, sale proceeds, securities, digital assets, or other recoverable value will be moved, layered, concealed, encumbered, or dissipated, ordinary litigation timing may become commercially useless. In those circumstances, a Mareva injunction in Ontario or other asset preservation injunction may be the only practical means of preserving recoverability pending trial. Ontario’s statutory footing lies in s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act, while Rule 40 governs the procedural route for interlocutory injunctions and mandatory orders.

A Mareva injunction is an extraordinary form of freezing relief. It is not a final judgment, and it is not meant to transfer assets to the plaintiff in advance. Its function is narrower and more exacting: to preserve assets so that a later judgment is not rendered hollow. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that jurisdiction in Aetna, and Ontario jurisprudence continues to treat Mareva relief as a specialized freezing order directed at dissipation risk and the practical integrity of the court’s eventual judgment.

For sophisticated litigants — founders, principals, boards, CFOs, lenders, family offices, trustees, receivers, and ultra-high-net-worth parties — the practical reality is straightforward. Once value moves beyond reach, the merits may cease to matter in practical terms. A well-framed freezing order in Ontario can preserve the position. A poorly conceived one can fail quickly, invite costs, and expose the moving party to the undertaking as to damages. That is why Mareva work must be approached not as procedural drama, but as disciplined recovery-sensitive advocacy.

Years of
combined
legal
experience

ME Law - Civil Litigation Law Firm

Who We Are

ME Law is a litigation-focused firm acting in urgent, high-stakes injunction matters across Ontario, including Mareva injunctions, asset freezing injunctions, and other forms of interim relief designed to preserve funds, property, and recoverable value before judgment. We represent corporations, investors, lenders, principals, real estate stakeholders, estate litigants, insolvency participants, and other sophisticated parties where the central risk is not simply wrongdoing, but the disappearance of practical recovery.

Our role is to identify whether the facts support true dissipation-risk relief, trace the assets or value said to be at risk, build the evidentiary record, and seek or resist an order that is proportionate, enforceable, and capable of surviving the return date. In one case, that may mean a targeted Mareva order in Ontario over bank accounts, sale proceeds, receivables, or real property. In another, it may mean resisting an overbroad freezing application that effectively seeks execution before judgment. Ontario’s Commercial List has published a Mareva model order for complex matters, which reflects the institutional seriousness with which these orders are approached.

We understand that asset preservation proceedings are often leverage-defining. They can determine whether a fraud claim retains value, whether a shareholder dispute remains economically meaningful, whether insolvency-related recovery stays available, and whether a later judgment can still be enforced. That is why we build Mareva records with the same care that experienced commercial litigators bring to any high-pressure interim application: precise evidence, proportionate relief, and strategic clarity from the outset.

Click to watch video

How We Help

CIVIL LITIGATION SERVICES

Emergency Without-Notice and Ex Parte Injunctive Relief

Whether you are seeking or defending against an emergency injunction, you need lawyers who can act decisively and effectively under urgent conditions. At ME Law, we develop fast, persuasive, and evidence-driven arguments. We know how to move quickly, prepare the required materials, and present a compelling case under extreme time constraints.

Urgent Interlocutory and Interim Injunctions

ME Law is a litigation-only firm with extensive experience handling interlocutory injunctions in commercial, real estate, employment, and property disputes. Litigation is all we do.

Permanent Injunctions and Final Equitable Relief

ME Law is a litigation-focused firm experienced in obtaining and defending against permanent injunctions. Our practice emphasizes strategic thinking, evidence development, and strong courtroom advocacy.

Norwich Orders and Third-Party Disclosure Relief

Whether you need to identify an unknown defendant, trace misappropriated funds, or preserve evidence before it disappears, we provide litigation-driven solutions designed to move your case forward.

Shareholder, Partnership, and Boardroom Crisis Injunctions

At ME Law, we represent businesses, founders, employers, and professionals in disputes involving restrictive covenants, unfair competition, and misuse of confidential information.

Mandatory Injunctions and Status-Quo Restoration Orders

Mandatory injunction proceedings frequently arise where immediate court intervention is required to restore operational stability, preserve rights, prevent irreparable harm, or reverse unlawful conduct. ME Law represents corporations, investors, lenders, executives, shareholders, and sophisticated stakeholders in high-stakes emergency injunction litigation throughout Ontario.

Why Choose Us

Premium Litigation Services:

Quality over quantity for selected clients in complex litigation matters

Selective Focus

We act for a select group of clients in high-stakes litigation, dedicating focused time and strategic attention to each matter to ensure precise, results-driven advocacy.

Limited Caseload

By limiting our caseload, we provide bespoke, high-level representation, where no detail is overlooked and every legal step is carefully considered. Quality over quantity is embedded in our ethos.

Strategic Execution

Our limited-file approach enables us to deliver thorough, strategic legal work on every matter. We don’t offer surface-level service – we provide clarity, focus, and substance.

Beyond Expectations

Our lawyers invest considerable time in legal analysis, research, and continuous training. This ongoing development allows us to stay ahead and deliver outcomes that often exceed clients’ expectations.

Clients’ Success Stories

Our cases

Strategic Commercial Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Securing a $50M+ Mareva Injunction for a Silicon Valley Startup

Strategic Resolution of $5M+ Shareholder Disputes Across Litigation and Arbitration

Strategic Resolution of $20M Corporate Dispute and $8M+ Estate Succession Matter

Strategic Litigation Leadership in a $15M+ Corporate and Family Dispute

Securing a $2M+ Property Interest After an 8-Day Civil Trial

How We Work

What To Expect

Clear and Strategic Guidance

Transparent and well-informed advice is provided to help navigate your options and achieve the best possible outcome.

Proactive Client Engagement

Clients can expect consistent communication and dedicated attention to ensure their needs are fully understood and addressed.

Meticulous Attention to Details

Every detail is carefully considered, and strategic oversight is provided to guide clients toward a favorable resolution.

Experienced. Effective. Results-Oriented.

A Mareva injunction is among the most exacting forms of interim relief available in civil litigation. The Supreme Court in Aetna recognized the remedy, but did so cautiously, emphasizing that freezing relief is not a substitute for ordinary execution and should not be granted merely because a plaintiff fears difficulty collecting later. Ontario’s foundational Mareva jurisprudence in Chitel has long been associated with a strong prima facie case, identifiable assets, a genuine risk of dissipation or removal, and full and frank disclosure where relief is sought without notice.

The broader injunction framework still matters. RJR-MacDonald remains the leading authority for interlocutory injunction analysis generally, including irreparable harm and balance of convenience, and the Supreme Court in Canadian Broadcasting Corp. confirmed that where any aspect of requested relief is mandatory in substance, the first-stage merits threshold rises to a strong prima facie case. That matters in asset-preservation work because some applications seek not only restraint, but affirmative disclosure, delivery up, tracing-related steps, or other relief that may cross the line from prohibitory to mandatory.

At ME Law, we act on urgent asset preservation mandates involving suspected fraud, shareholder diversion, misappropriation, real estate proceeds, dissipation-risk conduct, digital-asset movement, insolvency-related recoverability risk, and other disputes in which the central concern is whether value will remain reachable by the time the court adjudicates the merits. We also act for respondents who must move quickly to narrow, vary, or set aside overreaching freezing orders. Our focus is practical: preserve recoverability where the evidence justifies it, and resist relief that goes further than the law allows.

INJUNCTION LAWYERS YOU CAN RELY ON

We represent corporations, lenders, investors, shareholders, fiduciaries, trustees, family offices, receivers, and ultra-high-net-worth parties in Mareva injunction Ontario matters where recoverability is under immediate pressure. Our team understands the legal and commercial demands of freezing-order practice, including Rule 40 motion procedure, ex parte risk, return-date vulnerability, the undertaking as to damages, and the need for a carefully tailored order that the court can supervise with confidence.

Mareva litigation is not merely about obtaining a dramatic order. It is about preserving the practical value of the case while respecting the exceptional nature of pre-judgment restraint. That requires asset tracing, disciplined affidavit evidence, a coherent theory of dissipation risk, and full and frank disclosure if relief is sought without notice. It also requires restraint: a freezing order that is too broad, too vague, or insufficiently grounded can collapse under immediate scrutiny.

Our Commitment
We approach asset preservation and Mareva injunctions with urgency, precision, and proportion. Where freezing relief is necessary, we move decisively to preserve assets pending judgment and protect the enforceability of the court’s eventual decision. Where such relief is overreaching, unsupported, or oppressive in effect, we respond immediately to resist, narrow, or dissolve it. At ME Law, our objective is not to dramatize interim process. It is to protect recoverability in a manner that is commercially intelligent, judicially sustainable, and anchored in the real purposes of Mareva relief.

With us on your side, asset freezing injunction strategy is built around what ultimately matters most: preserving value before it disappears.

Emergency Mareva and Freezing Orders

Ex Parte Asset Preservation Motions

Bank Account and Brokerage Account Freezing Relief

Real Estate Proceeds and Title-Fraud Asset Preservation

Fraud, Misappropriation, and Dissipation-Risk Injunctions

Shareholder, Partnership, and Boardroom Asset-Protection Orders

Receivership, Insolvency, and Creditor Asset-Preservation Relief

Cross-Border and Worldwide Freezing Strategy

Tracing, Disclosure, and Norwich-Linked Preservation Relief

Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset Freezing Relief

Estate and Trust Asset-Preservation Injunctions

Defence, Variation, and Set-Aside of Mareva Orders

Clear Guidance. Strong Advocacy.

What we do:

Let us solve your legal issue

Years
Experience

0 +

Successful
Cases

0 +

Main Areas of
Specialization

0 +

Dedication to
Your Case

0 +

Reach out to us today

Frequently Asked Questions

Becoming a Client

View all faqs

How do I start?

The first step is to book a complimentary intake call with one of our intake specialists. During this initial conversation, we’ll gather some preliminary details about your matter, identify the nature of the dispute, and determine whether it falls within our areas of practice.

If we believe we can assist, we’ll then proceed with a conflict check to ensure there are no conflicts of interest under the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Once cleared, we can schedule a consultation with one of our lawyers, where we will review your situation in more detail, discuss potential legal strategies, and outline next steps for formal engagement.

This process ensures that every inquiry is handled carefully, ethically, and efficiently—so that we can provide you with informed guidance right from the outset.

Can you explain the typical steps involved?

Our process is designed to be clear, efficient, and transparent from start to finish.

Initial Intake Call:
We begin with a complimentary intake call to understand the general nature of your matter, confirm it falls within our areas of practice, and gather preliminary information.
Conflict Check:
Before receiving any detailed or confidential information, we conduct a conflict of interest check as required by the Law Society of Ontario. This ensures we can represent you without any professional conflicts.
Consultation with a Lawyer:
Once cleared, we schedule a formal consultation — either in person or remotely — where we review your situation in detail, answer your questions, and outline preliminary legal options or next steps.
Retainer and Engagement:
If you decide to proceed, we provide a Retainer Agreement outlining the scope of work, estimated costs, and billing structure. Upon execution and receipt of the retainer, we officially open your file.
Case Strategy and Next Steps:
Your lawyer will then prepare a strategy plan and begin working on your matter — whether that involves drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for court proceedings — while keeping you informed throughout.

At every stage, we emphasize clarity, communication, and transparency so you always know what to expect and how your case is progressing.

Why is it necessary to complete a conflict check form after the initial call?

Efforts to avoid conflicts of interest are required by the Law Society of Ontario and form a fundamental part of legal ethics and professional regulation.

A conflict check ensures that our firm has never represented—or is not currently representing—any party whose interests may be adverse to yours. This process protects both you and our firm by confirming that we can act for you with full independence and loyalty.

The duty to avoid conflicts applies to past, current, and prospective clients and is set out in the Rules of Professional Conduct (the Model Code) as well as by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, including R. v. Neil and Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP.

In practice, we conduct conflict checks before receiving detailed information about your matter. This step is an essential safeguard to uphold professional integrity and client trust.

How quickly can you schedule an initial call with a lawyer?

In most cases, we can schedule your consultation within 24–48 hours after completing the initial intake and conflict check process. This ensures that your matter is properly screened and assigned to the most suitable lawyer on our team.

To learn more about what happens next — from intake to engagement — please visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section, where we’ve outlined each step in detail and answered the most common questions new clients have.