Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The defendant breached a Mareva injunction by drawing approximately $950,000 from secured lines of credit.

• Her actions were found to be a serious and wilful contempt of court, though not a deliberate or public defiance.

• Evidence showed the funds were dissipated, including investments in what turned out to be a fraudulent crypto scheme.

• The court accepted that the defendant believed she was earning returns and intended to repay the lines of credit.

• Mitigating factors included no prior criminal history, caregiving responsibilities, and sincere remorse.

• A fine of $7,500 and costs of $50,000 were imposed, rejecting Westdale’s request for imprisonment and full indemnity costs.

Facts and procedural background

Glenda Avayianos, a former employee of Westdale Construction Co. Limited, was sued by her employer for alleged fraud and theft amounting to approximately $15 million. In response, Westdale obtained a Mareva injunction in September 2023 to freeze her assets, accompanied by Certificates of Pending Litigation placed on two of her properties. The injunction was later varied to permit her to withdraw up to $11,500 monthly from a designated RBC account for living and legal expenses.

Despite this, Avayianos accessed and depleted approximately $950,000 from two lines of credit secured against her properties. The withdrawals occurred over the span of 2024 and were used in part to invest in cryptocurrency platforms, particularly Braxton Wealth Management, later known as Capital Clique. She believed she had accumulated over $1.3 million in returns, which she intended to use to repay the lines of credit. However, by January 2025, she realized the investment was a scam and reported the matter to police.

Westdale brought a contempt motion in December 2024, asserting she had breached the Mareva order by failing to disclose and dissipating assets, including the unauthorized use of the lines of credit.

The court's analysis and findings

Justice Penman found that Avayianos was indeed in contempt for knowingly breaching the Mareva order by accessing the credit lines. The breach was characterized as serious and wilful but not egregious enough to warrant incarceration. The court emphasized that the contempt was over by the time of the hearing, and unlike other contempt cases, there were no repeated or ongoing violations of court orders.

The judge accepted Avayianos' evidence that she was defrauded by a third-party investment scheme and that she genuinely believed the funds were being invested with the aim of repayment. He also considered her personal circumstances, including her caregiving role for her elderly mother and young son, lack of criminal history, and the absence of prior court order breaches.

Penalty and costs

Westdale requested a jail sentence of 120–150 days, arguing that a fine would have little effect given the scale of the alleged fraud and dissipation of assets. The court rejected this, instead imposing a fine of $7,500, which was deemed proportionate in light of her circumstances and ability to pay. Justice Penman underscored that the objective of general and specific deterrence could be achieved without incarceration, especially as the contempt was not continuing and had not been characterized by public defiance.

On the issue of costs, Westdale sought a full indemnity award exceeding $159,000. However, the court significantly reduced the amount to $50,000. The judge reasoned that the contempt proceedings were not complex, and the bulk of Westdale’s legal efforts extended beyond the specific issue of the lines of credit to other conduct that had either been purged or did not constitute contempt. The use of multiple senior counsel and extensive hours, including cross-examinations that resembled discovery, further contributed to the downward adjustment.

Conclusion

The court found Avayianos in contempt for violating a Mareva injunction but imposed a monetary penalty rather than imprisonment. Her personal circumstances, remorse, and belief in the legitimacy of her actions influenced the court’s measured approach. While Westdale succeeded in securing a finding of contempt and partial costs, its requests for incarceration and full legal reimbursement were declined as disproportionate.