Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Core dispute involved whether Ahmed Eltayeb had any proprietary or equitable claim to the $390,000 withdrawn from a corporate account.

• Mareva injunction was initially granted ex parte on the basis of unauthorized withdrawal and alleged risk of dissipation.

• Applicants materially failed in their duty of full and frank disclosure, including omitting the extent of Ahmed’s past business involvement.

• Court found all parties lacked credibility, with inconsistent, incomplete, and conflicting evidence throughout the proceedings.

• Risk of dissipation was not clearly established; Hunt barely met the threshold, while Amir did not.

• Mareva injunction was quashed ab initio due to nondisclosure, but funds were ordered to remain in trust pending further court direction.

Facts of the Case

The case of 1964769 Alberta Ltd. v. Eltayeb arose from a family business conflict involving a $390,000 withdrawal from a corporate bank account. The applicants — Brian Hunt, Amir Eltayeb, and their corporations (1964769 Alberta Ltd. and 1000476282 Ontario Inc.) — alleged that Amir’s brother, Ahmed Eltayeb, wrongfully took the funds.

Key facts presented in the original ex parte application:

• Hunt and Amir were engaged in a used car wholesaling venture through their numbered companies.

• On April 11, 2024, Hunt transferred $390,000 to 6282 Ontario to buy vehicles.

• Soon after, Ahmed — who had signing authority on the account — moved the money into an account he controlled and issued a bank draft to himself for the full amount.

• The applicants claimed Ahmed was not involved in the business and had access only for administrative purposes. They said he took the funds out of anger after Amir cut off communication.

• The applicants sought a Mareva injunction, alleging a risk of dissipation of assets. The injunction was granted by Armstrong J.

However, the injunction sparked protracted litigation, during which the court uncovered a far more complicated picture.

Ahmed's Position

Ahmed Eltayeb presented a radically different account:

• He claimed to be a founding member of the business and that he contributed $450,000 in capital and played an active role.

• He alleged that 6282 Ontario was a joint venture between himself and Amir, and that the disputed funds were part of a broader accounting owed to him.

• He admitted taking the money but said it was meant to prompt a discussion and that it was never hidden — instead, it was held as a draft by their parents.

• Ahmed introduced evidence showing office space at Hunt’s facility, shared business dealings, and historical vehicle transactions.

• He also alleged retaliatory acts after the injunction, including being "debanked," property loss, and reputational harm.

The Applicants' Rebuttal

Hunt and Amir denied that Ahmed was part of their business:

• They portrayed him as a marginal figure — at best a helper, at worst a threatening presence demanding money.

• Amir accused Ahmed of intimidation and described him as a "mafia" figure who extorted money from him.

• They denied knowing where the money went after it was withdrawn and insisted the Mareva application was necessary.

Yet during cross-examination, inconsistencies emerged:

• Hunt admitted Ahmed had an office in his facility and was involved in purchasing vehicles.

• Amir acknowledged Ahmed had signing authority because he would "cut a draft" as part of vehicle purchases.

• Both downplayed Ahmed's role, but also acknowledged shared car buying and prior financial involvement.

The Corvette Incident

A subplot involving a blue Corvette further illustrated the parties' entanglements:

• Documents showed the vehicle was originally purchased using Indigenous tax-exempt status via a third party but later registered in Ahmed’s name and sold by Hunt without a valid title transfer.

• Ahmed claimed he paid the deposit; Hunt admitted Ahmed’s credit card was used.

• The conflicting explanations around the Corvette — including possible impersonation and misuse of tax exemptions — highlighted the murky and unreliable evidence from all sides.

Legal Framework and Mareva Injunction

The Court reviewed the six-part test for a Mareva injunction, derived from Chitel v. Rothbart and adopted in Alberta caselaw:

1. Strong prima facie case

2. Assets in the jurisdiction

3. Real risk of dissipation

4. Irreparable harm if relief denied

5. Balance of convenience favors relief

6. Undertaking as to damages

For ex parte applications, courts also require full and frank disclosure — especially of any material facts the respondent would raise if present.

The Court’s Findings

Justice Devlin found significant problems with the applicants' conduct:

• Strong prima facie case: The applicants had a valid claim for conversion. Ahmed had no legal entitlement to take the funds, regardless of any belief in entitlement. The withdrawal was an impermissible form of prejudgment self-help.

• Risk of dissipation: The risk was not clearly established. Although Hunt claimed not to know the draft's location, evidence later showed Amir may have known it was with their parents. Still, the court found — by a narrow margin — that Hunt (but not Amir) had met the threshold for risk of dissipation.

• Full and frank disclosure: The applicants failed to disclose:

  • The prior business relationship with Ahmed;

  • The broader context of communications;

  • The possibility that Ahmed believed he had an equitable interest in the funds;

  • And that discussions had taken place about the return of the money.

These omissions were material and undermined the integrity of the ex parte process. The court held that Hunt and Amir had deliberately underinformed the Court to strengthen their narrative.

• Credibility: All parties were found to lack credibility. Justice Devlin noted the “reliability dumpster-fire” of the Corvette saga and stated none of the witnesses gave fully trustworthy evidence.

Outcome and Remedy

• The Mareva injunction was quashed ab initio (treated as if it never existed) due to material non-disclosure by the applicants.

• However, the disputed funds were not returned to Ahmed, as he had no proven proprietary claim to them. The money remains in trust, pending further order.

• The applicants may face liability in costs and damages, though that remains to be determined.

• The Court declined to reissue a new injunction, despite finding a continuing prima facie case and some risk of dissipation, due to the applicants’ conduct and equity considerations.

Final Remarks from the Court

Justice Devlin concluded:

“This entire fiasco should never have occurred. Ahmed should not have taken the money. The Applicants should not have come before the Court on an ex parte basis without a fuller picture of the underlying relationships.”

He warned that continued litigation would likely exceed the amount in dispute and advised all parties to settle.