In order to facilitate settlement discussions between
the parties, TCHI paid $40,000 on account of the costs orders,
and agreed to pay the balance in instalments. As a result of
this payment, the Sheriff’s Office was instructed to stand
 The outstanding balance that TCHI therefore owes
to Maple Trust pursuant to the costs orders is $120,396.90,
together with interest from August 6, 2016.
 Maple Trust intends to enforce the writs of seizure and
sale against the 701 account. Maple Trust takes the position
that it already has a judgment and is entitled to proceed with
seizing funds in the 701 account under the Execution Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. E.24 to enforce that judgment.
 Maple Trust takes the fundamental position at law that
a Mareva injunction is not proprietary in nature. It submits
that Trade Capital obtained a Mareva injunction instead of
a proprietary injunction. For that reason, assets of a Mareva
defendant on deposit at a financial institution covered by
the Mareva injunction must yield to another legal process
that make those assets or funds on account payable to another
 Trade Capital takes the position that the Mareva injunction prohibits Maple Trust from enforcing its writs of seizure
and sale. Trade Capital alleges that the 701 account is one of
many that contains funds stolen from it through the fraud, and
that it has a proprietary claim to those funds.
 In Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Credit Valley
Institute of Business and Technology,  O.J. No. 40, 
O.T.C. 7 (S.C.J.), Justice Molloy explains the difference between
a proprietary injunction and a Mareva order [at para. 15]:
It is important at the outset to distinguish between the proprietary
injunction and the Mareva injunction. A proprietary injunction is granted
to preserve an asset in the possession of a defendant, which the plaintiff
says belongs to the plaintiff, or is subject to a trust in favour of the plain-
tiff. It is typically sought in cases of alleged theft, conversion or fraud
where the defendant, by some wrongdoing, comes into the possession
of the plaintiff’s property. The purpose of the injunction is to preserve
the disputed property until trial so that the property will be returned to
the plaintiff if successful at trial, rather than used by the defendant for
his own purposes.
 At para. 16, Justice Molloy discusses the requirements for
a Mareva injunction, and the test a plaintiff must meet to obtain
that kind of order. The purpose and effect of a Mareva injunction
becomes more apparent in this discussion [at para. 16]: