Using Rule 45 to Prevent the Disposal of Property

Rule 45 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure deals with the preservation of personal property that is relevant to a litigated issue. The goal of this rule is to prohibit the party who is currently in possession of the property from selling or otherwise getting rid of it before the matter has been resolved.
Old engineers preventing servers strain

Rule 45 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure deals with the preservation of personal property that is relevant to a litigated issue.  The goal of this rule is to prohibit the party who is currently in possession of the property from selling or otherwise getting rid of it before the matter has been resolved. A preservation order is an extraordinary form of relief that is often issued with little or no prior warning. It is comparable to an Anton Piller order, which enables a party to inspect records and remove them into the custody of an interim receiver, and a Mareva injunction, which prevents a party from dealing with its own assets pending the determination of the proceeding.

Under Rule 45, the temporary preservation of property can be accomplished through one of three different forms of orders. Rule 45.01 enables the court to issue an interim order for the preservation or sale of property, as well as the authority to enter or search any property that is in the possession of a party or a non-party. Rule 45.02 allows for the payment of a specific money into court or the security of the fund “on such terms as are just.” The recovery of personal property that has been held as security is provided for under Rule 45.03.

In order to obtain a preservation order, the moving party must demonstrate that the property in question is relevant to the proceeding or an issue in the proceeding, that there is a serious issue to be tried with regard to the property, that the interim preservation or custody of the property is necessary for a party to either advance or defend its claim, and that the balance of convenience favours granting the relief sought by the applicant. In most cases, a motion for a preservation order is brought on an ex parte basis.

Because preservation orders are, in essence, demands for pre-judgment execution, the courts are notoriously reluctant to grant them. This is an important point to keep in mind. There must be a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience must favour granting the relief. Additionally, courts have the inherent authority to control the process of litigation, including the power to require the preservation of electronic records; this includes the ability to order the preservation of electronic documents. When there is a strong likelihood that the defendant will destroy evidence after being informed of the proceedings, it is common practice to file a motion for a preservation order in to ensure that significant evidence, such as documents, information, or other items, will be preserved and made accessible for the trial of the action in question.

Share:

More Posts

Offers to Settle in Ontario Litigation

Rule 49 offers to settle are a cornerstone of civil litigation in Ontario. They reflect a deliberate policy choice to encourage settlement and reduce the burden of trials. By attaching significant costs consequences to the rejection of reasonable offers, the rule compels litigants to weigh the risks of trial carefully.

Cross-Examination at Trial

Cross-examination is widely regarded as one of the most powerful tools in the trial process. It is not only a feature of the adversarial system but a defining characteristic that sets it apart from other legal traditions. Through cross-examination, the evidence of witnesses is tested for accuracy, reliability, and truthfulness. Where examination-in-chief allows a party to present its own case in an orderly fashion, cross-examination permits opposing counsel to probe, challenge, and, where appropriate, dismantle that account.

When Does the Limitation Period Start for a Defamation Claim Stemming from False Police Reports?

The ruling in Kulyk v. Guastella reminds us of the importance of timely dealing with civil defamation claims, regardless of concurrent criminal proceedings. Justice Myers’ decision, grounded in the interpretation of the Limitations Act, emphasizes an objective standard for initiating defamation claims. Potential plaintiffs must therefore remain vigilant and proactive in protecting their legal rights against defamatory accusations, even amidst criminal proceedings.

Civil Litigation - Business Law - Appeals
Ready to move forward?
Ready to retain exceptional legal representation? Contact Grigoras Law today and experience strategic counsel, meticulous advocacy, and personalized solutions tailored specifically to your legal situation.
INTAKE FORM

Confidential consultation

09000 00000

65 Queen Street west, Suite 1240, toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5

Requeast a Consulastion

our team of experienced lawyers are at your service

Skip to content