-off of the cannabis-business to Hystyle. A Mareva injunction is an injunctive order that restrains a party from dissipating assets or from conveying away his or her own property pending the determination in the proceedings. It is known to be an extraordinary remedy not typically granted by Courts and there is a high bar for obtaining such an order. To obtain such an order, a party must satisfy a five-part test. In this case, on March 18, 2019, Justice Perell’s decision was that Lakhani and the Diabs did not satisfy the criteria for the Mareva injunction, which is unsurprising.
This does not mean that the litigation is over. Rather, it means is that the action will continue in the normal course.
Most of the (public) cannabis litigation to date (meaning, reported decisions) have been more human-rights focused. This case is one of the first reported decisions relating to the cannabis industry that is squarely within the realm of commercial litigation. With any new industry, litigation takes time. This case certainly won’t be the last for commercial cannabis litigation. We expect an onslaught of commercial cannabis litigation as the industry grows and matures and look forward to the way that will shape and further develop the Canadian cannabis industry.
A full copy of Justice Perell’s decision is available on Canlii at https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc1727
/2019onsc1727.pdf
If you are a retailer who requires assistance with respect to the development of compliant security measures and collection of personal information, please feel free to contact
Whitney Abrams
at Minden Gross LLP 416-369-4148 | [email protected] or connect on Twitter @whitneyeabrams.
171