this motion, or to make its claim to a legal interest in specific
funds held in the 701 account under Rule 45: Sadie Moranis
Realty Corp. v. 1667038 Ontario Inc. (2012), 111 O.R. (3d) 401,
 O.J. No. 3029, 2012 ONCA 475. When it did not do
so under the guidance of seasoned counsel, I cannot help
but conclude that it had no basis to seek either order in fact or
 In the motion before this court, there is not even evidence to argue that funds belonging to or paid from Trade Capital were comingled with other funds belonging to TCHI in the
701 account. There is simply no connection between the claim
made by Trade Capital for the general recovery of funds,
and the specific funds held in the 701 account at BCU. For
a proprietary claim to succeed on tracing funds from one source
to a recipient, identification of the assets from one place to
another is key.
 I agree with Justice Estey in Aetna Financial where
he adopts the quote from Justice Goff in the Iraqi Ministry of
Defence case that to accord the Mareva injunction holder a priority over a potential creditor would be to “rewrite the . . . law of
insolvency”. In my view, any other conclusion would lead to consequences the law did not intend.
Rule 37.14 factors
 Maple Trust bring its motion in essence to exempt BCU
and its writs and seizure and sale from the Mareva injunction
that Trade Capital obtained on May 6, 2015.
 In the event that Maple Trust seeks an order that actu-
ally varies the scope of the Mareva order, I consider that Maple
Trust has met the test set out in A v. B (X intervening), 
2 Lloyd’s Rep 532 (Q.B.D.) (at para. 534). On a motion to vary
a Mareva injunction under rule 37.14, the court must consider
the following factors when deciding whether to vary a Mareva
injunction at the request of a creditor:
(1) Has the creditor established on the evidence that there are
no other assets available to satisfy the debt other than those
frozen by the injunction?
(2) Would the payment to the creditor normally have been
made by the defendant?
(3) Does the payment defeat the purpose of the injunction?
 Justice Ricchetti’s order dated May 6, 2015, applies to “all
assets” of each of the Mareva defendants. Given the broad reach