ONTARIO – Mareva Injunction–Anton Piller Order – Sealing Order – An ex parte order for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the disposition of Canadian assets and the destruction of documents was granted in aid of a pending New York action, claiming damages for fraudulent inducement where the defendant had moved to Canada, had assets in Canada, had admitted to fraud and there was evidence of fabrication and destruction of documents. There was a genuine risk that the assets would be moved out of the reach of the Court and that documents would be destroyed if the orders were not made.

ONTARIO – Arbitration – Arbitration Act, 1991, s. 46 – Arbitrator’s refusal to allow amendment of pleadings to permit a claim for negligent misrepresentation just days before the pre-emptory hearing of the arbitration was not unfair or unequal treatment and was not a basis to set aside the arbitrator’s award.

ONTARIO – Arbitration – Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ”) recognizes and enforces international arbitral awards. The grounds to oppose recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards are set out in the New York Convention and Model Law which have been adopted by the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA). A summary procedure does not deny a party natural justice or the ability to present its case.

ONTARIO – Corporation – Piercing the corporate veil. There must be a clear link between the liability the plaintiff seeks to recover by piercing the corporate veil and the wrongful conduct of the individual in control of the corporation. Even where the test to pierce the corporate veil is not met, the oppression remedy can be asserted against a director of the company if the director made unlawful and internal corporate manoeuvres against which a creditor could not protect itself that constitute oppression.

BRITISH COLUMBIA – Arbitration – Application for Stay of Court Proceedings – Whether the claims of non-signatories to shareholder agreements were subject to the arbitration clause in those agreements is a question of mixed fact and law that cannot be answered based on a superficial review of the record. It is a question to be determined by the arbitrator in the first instance.

ONTARIO – Fraudulent Conveyances – A creditor need not have been the debtor’s creditor at the time of the conveyance to bring a claim under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, RSO 1990, c F.29. If the debtor perceived a risk of claims from future creditors when it conveyed a property with the intention to evade those creditors, future creditors can bring claims under the Act.