Except as otherwise set out herein, I agree with the background facts as set out at paras. 3 to12 of Madame Justice
 A Mareva injunction operates to freeze the defendant’s
eligible assets until judgment. It is an extraordinary remedy
which can and often does result in extremely harsh consequences.
 The Mareva injunction had its genesis in the courts of
England between 1975 and 1980. It was developed, as Estey J.
said in Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, 
1 S.C.R. 2,  S.C.J. No. 1, at para. 41, “to fend off the depredations of shady mariners operating out of far-away havens,
usually on the fringe of legally organized commerce”. It is an
exception to the rule in Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890), 45 Ch.
D. 1, [1886-90] All E.R. Rep. 797 (C.A.) that the court will not
grant an injunction to enable execution before judgment.
 The purpose of the Mareva injunction is to pre-empt
any action by the defendant to remove his or her assets from the
jurisdiction and therefore negate any judgment given by the
court in the action.
 The leading case in Ontario in respect of the granting of
Mareva injunctions is the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chitel v.
Rothbart (1982), 39 O.R. (2d) 513,  O.J. No. 3540 (C.A.). In
Chitel, after reviewing the English authority that gave rise to
the Mareva, MacKinnon A.C.J.O., writing on behalf of the court,
adopted what Lord Denning M.R. referred to as “guidelines” in
Third Chandris Shipping Corp. v. Unimarine S.A.; The Pythis,
 Q.B. 645,  2 All E.R. 972,  2 Lloyd’s Rep. 184
(C.A.), at pp. 894-95 Q.B., with some notable changes. Those
“guidelines” provide that the moving party must establish
(1) a strong prima facie case;
(2) that the defendant has assets in the jurisdiction;
(3) that there is a real risk that the defendant will remove his
assets from the jurisdiction or dissipate those assets to
(4) that the moving party will suffer irreparable harm if
the injunction is not granted;
(5) that the balance of convenience favours granting the
(6) the moving party must give an undertaking as to damages.