A judge weighed oral promises against the fine print - and the fine print won.
An Ontario court has denied a Mareva injunction sought by investors who accused a fund's promoters of defrauding them of $3.2 million.
Justice Jana Steele of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released her decision on August 19, 2026, following a two-day hearing held in July. The investors, including a husband-and-wife pair who put in USD$612,452 and CAD$292,000, sought to freeze the worldwide assets of Suske Capital Inc. and its principal, along with a network of Avenir Group entities and their principal, tied to four senior housing and health care projects in Canada and the US.
The dispute centers on the Los Angeles Memory Care project, an 88-bed facility financed in part through a fund that loaned up to USD$7.7 million to the developer. Investors allege they were told at a presentation that the fund's principals personally guaranteed their individual investments, and that this representation induced them to invest. The project ultimately failed to reach viable occupancy, and investors say they will not recover their money.
Justice Steele found the allegation unsupported on the record before her. The offering documents, including the limited partnership agreement, specified that the guarantee applied to promissory notes between corporate entities rather than directly to individual investors, and that language was available before investors signed. Some investors brought the documents to legal counsel for review before committing funds. "I am not satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case," Justice Steele wrote, characterizing the dispute as sophisticated investors unhappy with a risky bet that did not pay off, rather than fraud.
The court also found no serious risk that the defendants would move or hide assets, pointing to the absence of vanishing accounts, offshore transfers, or other conduct typically tied to dissipation. It rejected investors' argument that a family trust holding the Avenir principal's assets, established in 2006, pointed to deliberate shielding.
A separate dispute over a 109-suite Calgary retirement project, where investors want early repayment of principal without releasing their interest claims, remains unresolved. The court found a triable issue over when payment is actually due under that project's agreements.
The Mareva motion was dismissed in full, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of $40,000 to one of the fund's principals and $90,000 to Suske Capital Inc. and its principal.
For advisors and compliance teams recommending exempt-market or private placement products, the ruling is a reminder that courts weigh detailed subscription and offering documents over oral pitch claims, and that Canada's bar for freezing a defendant's assets ahead of trial stays high even where fraud is alleged.
