THE ADVOCATE 925
VOL. 76 PART 6 NOVEMBER 2018
you—Crerar’s text does not make for the most enjoyable vacation read.
However, for those looking to cut to the chase and either support their point
or refute opposing counsel’s, a list is a wonderful thing.
Practitioners in jurisdictions other than B.C. and Ontario may sometimes
find themselves frustrated by the emphasis on Canada’s two most populous
common law jurisdictions. Fewer cases are cited from other jurisdictions.
However, this lacuna can hardly be laid at Crerar’s feet: as he repeatedly
notes, many Canadian jurisdictions simply have not produced much (or
any) law on the subjects of his book (for example, Newfoundland and
Labrador has statutory relief akin to Mareva but no published Mareva or
Anton Piller decisions;15 similarly, there is no discussion of what those practitioners
in jurisdictions other than B.C. and Ontario should do when
preparing an Anton Piller or Mareva order, given that only B.C. and Ontario
have model orders). Those looking for a critical comparison of the law in
the various provinces and territories can get a taste in the introduction
(where Crerar discusses the differing emphasis on Mareva versus preservation
of property orders in mainland Maritime provinces and B.C.16). Those
looking for a detailed critical analysis of differences within the federation
are in the wrong place.
One does have to be careful when using this text—overreliance could lead
you down the path of error. In the first place, the book is divided into three
main topics: Mareva orders, preservation of property rules and Anton Piller
orders. That is very sensible, so long as you read the introduction and you
know that much of the Mareva content applies with equal force to the Anton
Piller section, even where the former is not mentioned in the latter. The key
pieces are, however, flagged for the reader in the latter section—for instance,
chapter 19, on the procedure for Anton Piller orders, expressly refers to chapter
7, on the procedure for Mareva orders, “most of which will also apply to
Anton Piller applications”.17 While helpful, the discerning reader is left a bit
concerned about what constitutes “most”, and which parts do not apply.
A second point of caution is that the book does exactly what it sets out to
do: provide an overview of the law, along with succinct and punchy statements
of the holdings in various cases. It is not a lengthy treatise, despite
being a complicated area of law. The drawbacks of this approach are two.
Crerar identifies one in the Introduction: “Do not blindly cite these cases,
and heed the admonition of Lord Halsbury”, which, paraphrased, says
“don’t forget about the facts”.18 The second is not identified; it is that apparent
inconsistencies or muddy places in the law (of which there are many in
this area) are not always made clear. For instance, what constitutes the
“clear evidence” required to establish each of the four elements for an Anton