Skip to main content

PLEASE NOTE: For everyone’s safety, Fasken recommends anyone on-site at our Canadian offices be familiar with the COVID-19 recommendations in place which may include one or more of the following: social distancing, hand sanitizing, wearing a mask in common areas and proof of full vaccination. These measures apply to lawyers, staff, clients, service providers and other visitors.

Client Work

Waxman v. Waxman, [2005] O.J. No. 5671 (S.C.J.), aff'd (2006) 216 O.A.C. 379 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2006] S.C.C.A. No. 486

Reading Time 1 minute read Subscribe


Waxman v. Waxman, 2005 CanLII 48924 (ON S.C.) Waxman v. Waxman, 2006 CanLII 35815 (ON C.A.) In 2004. orders were obtained freezing the assets of the defendants. In 2005, notices were delivered seeking to seize these frozen monies to execute on outstanding judgments. Both at trial and on appeal, successfully resisted the defendants' claims that the earlier freezing order prevented our clients from seizing the funds. Robert Harrison and Gideon Forrest advised the client on the trial, and Gideon Forrest on the appeal.



    Receive email updates from our team