A Mareva injunction freezes a defendant's assets before judgment to prevent them from being dissipated or moved out of reach, while an Anton Piller order allows a plaintiff to enter a defendant's premises to preserve evidence at risk of being destroyed. Both are exceptional remedies granted only in limited circumstances, generally requiring a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation or evidence destruction, and full and frank disclosure by the party seeking the order, since these applications are often made without notice to the other side. Courts treat both remedies with significant caution given how invasive they are.
- A Mareva injunction freezes a defendant's assets before judgment to prevent them from being moved, hidden, or dissipated.
- An Anton Piller order allows entry onto a defendant's premises to preserve evidence genuinely at risk of being destroyed.
- Both remedies generally require a strong prima facie case — not just a plausible claim, but a genuinely compelling one.
- Because these applications are often made without notice to the other side, the party seeking the order has a strict duty of full and frank disclosure to the court.
- A Mareva injunction can extend beyond local assets to worldwide assets where the circumstances genuinely warrant it.
- Courts treat both remedies as exceptional, not routine — they are reserved for cases where real, demonstrated urgency exists, not simply where a plaintiff is worried about collection generally.
The Short Answer
Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders are Ontario's most powerful pre-judgment civil remedies, each solving a different urgent problem: a Mareva injunction freezes a defendant's assets so they cannot disappear before judgment, while an Anton Piller order allows evidence to be preserved before it can be destroyed. Both are exceptional, not routine, and courts scrutinize applications for them carefully.
Mareva Injunctions: Freezing Assets
A Mareva injunction prohibits a defendant from disposing of, transferring, or otherwise dissipating assets before a judgment can be obtained and enforced. Ontario courts formally recognized this remedy decades ago, and it remains available where a plaintiff can show, generally, a strong prima facie case — often involving allegations of fraud — a real risk of asset dissipation, grounds for believing relevant assets exist within reach, and a willingness to undertake responsibility for damages if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. In appropriate circumstances, the order can reach assets worldwide, not just within Ontario.
While Mareva injunctions can theoretically apply outside fraud scenarios, the strong prima facie case requirement is most often satisfied in cases involving clear allegations of fraudulent conduct, where the risk of a defendant moving assets to evade judgment is most apparent.
Anton Piller Orders: Preserving Evidence
An Anton Piller order permits a plaintiff — generally under independent supervision to protect the defendant's rights — to enter a defendant's premises and search for and preserve evidence relevant to the claim. The governing test generally requires a strong case on its face, evidence of very serious potential damage, convincing evidence that the incriminating material is actually in the defendant's possession, and a genuine, real risk that the evidence will be destroyed before it can be obtained through the ordinary litigation process, including through examination for discovery.
What Both Remedies Have in Common
Both are considered exceptional, invasive remedies, generally sought on an urgent, often without-notice basis — meaning the defendant does not get advance warning or an opportunity to respond before the order is made. Courts are deliberately cautious about granting either, precisely because of how significant their impact can be before the underlying claim has even been fully tested.
These remedies also come up frequently in shareholder disputes, where one party may control assets the other side has a legitimate claim to.
The Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
Because these orders are typically sought without notice, the party asking for one carries a strict duty of full and frank disclosure to the court — including disclosing facts that might actually weaken their own application. Courts outside Ontario have set aside combined Mareva and Anton Piller orders specifically for failures of candour, a principle Ontario courts apply with similar seriousness. Getting this wrong can undo an otherwise meritorious application entirely.
A party who obtains one of these orders through incomplete or misleading disclosure risks having it set aside later — regardless of whether the underlying claim turns out to have merit. These are not remedies to pursue aggressively without full transparency to the court.
When These Remedies Actually Get Used
These remedies come up most often in cases involving serious fraud allegations — see our guide on civil fraud claims in Ontario — intellectual property disputes, and increasingly, cases involving cryptocurrency or other digital assets that can be moved or hidden with unusual speed. The common factor across all of these is genuine urgency: evidence or assets that will likely be gone by the time an ordinary process, including the full civil lawsuit timeline in Ontario, plays out. Once a judgment is eventually obtained, see our guide on enforcing a judgment in Ontario Superior Court.
What to Do If This Applies to Your Situation
If you believe a defendant is actively moving assets or may destroy evidence, act quickly — these remedies exist precisely because delay can defeat the purpose entirely. If you don't yet know who the wrongdoer actually is, see our guide on Norwich orders for identifying them through a non-party first. Once a claim is underway, these issues often intersect with examination for discovery and, for widespread conduct affecting many people, a class proceeding. Call 416-274-2222 for a free, confidential consultation to assess whether your situation genuinely meets the bar for one of these exceptional remedies.
Frequently Asked Questions
A Mareva injunction, or freezing order, prohibits a defendant from disposing of, transferring, or dissipating assets before judgment, protecting a plaintiff's ability to eventually collect if they win. It can apply to assets within Ontario or, in appropriate cases, worldwide.
An Anton Piller order is a civil search order allowing a plaintiff, generally with independent supervision, to enter a defendant's premises to locate and preserve evidence that is genuinely at risk of being destroyed or hidden before it can be used in the litigation.
Generally, a strong prima facie case (often involving allegations of fraud), a real risk that assets will be dissipated before judgment, grounds for believing relevant assets exist within the court's reach, and an undertaking to cover damages if the injunction turns out to have been wrongly granted.
Generally, a strong case on its face, evidence of very serious potential damage, convincing evidence that the relevant material is actually in the defendant's possession, and a real and genuine risk that the evidence will be destroyed or hidden before it can be obtained through ordinary procedures.
Both remedies are often sought without notice to the other side, meaning the defendant has no opportunity to respond before the order is made. Courts rely heavily on the requesting party to honestly disclose everything relevant, including facts that might hurt their own application, and failing to do so can result in the order being set aside later, regardless of the underlying merits.
No. Both are treated as exceptional and are granted far less often than ordinary civil remedies, reserved for situations with genuine, demonstrated urgency — not simply a general worry that a defendant might not pay a judgment.
Cases involving allegations of fraud, intellectual property theft, or situations where a defendant has shown signs of actively trying to move or hide assets or evidence are the most common context, including recent cases involving cryptocurrency and digital assets.