Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A strong prima facie case was found because the evidence of misrepresentation and fabricated documents in the sale of Jobs in Dubai Inc. raised the likelihood of fraud.
   
• Evidence on a 2024 property purchase came from a law clerk’s affidavit rather than from the defendants, a litigation strategy the court found of great concern and treated as showing a risk that assets would be removed from Ontario.
   
• Irreparable harm was established because the defendants chose not to identify sources of equity or assets within the jurisdiction.
   
• Bhaktraj Singh’s personal undertaking as to damages satisfied that factor, even though the corporate plaintiff held virtually no assets and generated no revenue.
   
• Having found that the plaintiff recovered at least $850,000 USD of the purchase price, the court limited the Mareva injunction to $300,000 CDN.
   
• In addendum reasons, the court declined to extend the injunction to Nirmala (Mala) Leidoux, whose only acknowledged involvement was the property purchase.
   

Facts of the case

GTN Global Talent Network Inc., whose owner and principal is Bhaktraj Singh, bought Jobs in Dubai Inc. in a transaction that closed on August 23, 2023. The purchase price was $2,000,000: the plaintiff paid Anthony Leidoux $1,500,000 in cash, which was not disputed, and gave a promissory note for the remaining $500,000. After closing, the plaintiff learned of false representations made through altered or fabricated financial, banking and business records.

Evidence included affidavits from the owner of the software development company that created the website for Jobs in Dubai Inc. In an affidavit sworn September 26, 2024, he said Anthony Leidoux asked him to add 300,000 job seekers to the Jobs in Dubai database. A supplementary affidavit sworn June 20, 2025 stated that Anthony Leidoux had offered to pay an outstanding invoice of about $5,000 USD if he would say he had not signed his earlier affidavit. A further offer followed of 10 to 15 percent of the $1,400,000 that Anthony Leidoux told him Singh had paid for the business.

The plaintiff issued its Statement of Claim on March 3, 2024, and the defendants delivered a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated May 30, 2024. An ex parte motion heard January 17, 2025 was dismissed because the defendants were represented and had pleaded, and there was no evidence that service was impracticable or unnecessary or that the delay needed to serve them might entail serious consequences. That endorsement and the motion record were apparently not served until April 10, 2025. Meanwhile, on November 29, 2024, Anthony Leidoux became a one percent owner and his spouse, Nirmala Leidoux, a 99 percent owner of residential property in the Township of Scugog, subject to a $1,050,000 charge that was increased to $1,135,000 on January 8, 2026.

As of July 30, 2024, the plaintiff had sold Jobs in Dubai Inc. to Global Hiring LLC, owned and operated by Eric Finkelman, for $850,000 USD upfront plus $650,000 USD payable over the next four years. According to the court, this would appear to reduce or even eliminate the plaintiff’s loss once exchange rates were taken into account, though neither side detailed those rates. Finkelman was unable to make the business viable or suit his needs, and he sold it for $850,000 USD plus an additional $150,000 USD tied to a milestone described as unachievable, which he assigned to Singh. Plaintiff’s counsel conceded that damages would not be expected to exceed $650,000 USD. If the injunction was warranted, defence counsel argued, the proper amount was $300,000 or less.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

No contractual clause or statutory provision was in dispute. Instead, the motion turned on the Mareva injunction factors agreed by counsel: a strong prima facie case; particulars of the claim, including its grounds and amount, with a fair statement of the points made against it by the defendants; grounds to believe the defendants have assets in Ontario; grounds to believe those assets risk being removed, dissipated or disposed of before judgment; and an undertaking as to damages, as set out in Sherif Gerges Pharmacy Professional Corporation et al. v. Niam Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al, 2025 ONSC 970. Relying on 7572042 Canada Inc. v. The Bank of Nova Scotia, 2022 ONSC 3535, the plaintiff also addressed irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.

Reasoning and analysis

Defence counsel conceded a prima facie case but argued it did not meet the threshold used in reported decisions of being almost certain to succeed at trial. The court disagreed, finding that the materials detailed misrepresentation and fabricated documents raising the likelihood of fraud. Despite concerns about the quantum of the plaintiff’s actual loss, the evidence was uncontested that the defendants tried to misrepresent the value of what was being purchased. While the resale eleven months later could be argued to have been at a comparable price, there was also evidence of the plaintiff’s efforts to increase the cash flow, client base and value of the business. Ownership of Ontario property satisfied the assets-in-jurisdiction requirement, which defence counsel acknowledged.

On the risk of dissipation, the November 2024 property purchase came after the sale of the business and the start of the litigation. Its weight was undermined, however, because Anthony Leidoux took only a one percent interest, with the rest held by a spouse whom counsel acknowledged had no other involvement in the dispute. Plaintiff’s counsel urged an adverse inference from the defendants’ decision not to submit evidence on which they could be cross-examined. Evidence of the purchase came from a law clerk employed by the defendants’ law firm. An email exchange between counsel from July 29 to August 11, 2025 showed that plaintiff’s counsel intended to cross-examine her on the defendants’ assets and their presence in or removal from the jurisdiction, which would likely require undertakings and confirmation that such questions would be refused. The exchange concluded there was no need to incur the time and expense of an ineffectual examination. Describing this as a litigation strategy of great concern, the court found it satisfied a risk that assets would be removed from Ontario.

Defence counsel challenged the undertaking as to damages because Singh admitted on cross-examination that the corporate plaintiff held virtually no assets and generated no revenue. Plaintiff’s counsel answered that Singh gave the undertaking personally in his affidavit, and it was acknowledged that the defendants could recover any award of damages or costs from him personally, which satisfied the court. Applying Christian-Philip v. Rajalingam, 2020 ONSC 1925, the court found irreparable harm because the defendants could have answered the motion by identifying sources of equity or assets in Ontario but chose not to. Given the uncontested evidence of misrepresentation and falsified documents, along with the alleged bribery, the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff.

After the initial reasons were released, counsel contacted the court on July 30 about whether the injunction should also cover Mala Leidoux. Written submissions followed from the defendants on July 31 and from the plaintiff on August 31, 2026. Plaintiff’s counsel pointed to her status as a party and the fraud concerns. Counsel also argued that Anthony Leidoux’s avoidance of cross-examination by filing no affidavit evidence applied equally to her and warranted an adverse inference. Defence counsel relied on the earlier acknowledgment that her only involvement was the Scugog property purchase. Because the submissions and materials centred on Anthony Leidoux and his role in operating Jobs in Dubai Inc., the court held the Mareva threshold was not met as against Mala Leidoux, noting that Mareva relief is an extraordinary remedy amounting to execution before judgment.

Ruling and overall outcome

GTN Global Talent Network Inc. obtained its Mareva injunction, but the court capped it at $300,000 CDN, reasoning that the plaintiff had recovered at least $850,000 USD of a $2,000,000 purchase price of which only $1,500,000 was paid. That sum is to appear at paragraphs 1(a), 3, 8 and 10 of the standard Mareva order, which the court was prepared to sign once counsel approved its form and content or submitted an agreed version. Under the addendum reasons, the order is to name only Jobs in Dubai Inc. and Anthony Leidoux, leaving Mala Leidoux outside its scope. Counsel had agreed in advance on costs of $9,000 if the defendants won or $16,000 if the plaintiff won, both inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements, and the plaintiff, as the successful party, was awarded $16,000. The $300,000 CDN figure limits the injunction and is not a damages award, and neither decision fixes the plaintiff’s actual loss.