Law360 Canada ( May 21, 2021, 9:09 AM EDT) -- Appeal by the plaintiff City from a decision dismissing its application for a preservation order under s. 5(5) of the Enforcement of Money Judgments Act. The City sued the respondents for alleged defects in the supply and installation of sewer pipe. When the City learned that the respondent Mi-Sask was selling its assets and winding up its business, it applied for a preservation order. Mi-Sask had voluntarily sold land and equipment since its directors wanted to retire. The amount remaining from the auction proceeds after payment of shareholder loans and funding defence expenses were intended to be set aside for the lawsuit. The chambers judge dismissed the application after concluding that the City failed to prove that, absent a preservation order, enforcement of the judgment it sought in the project claim would likely be partially or totally ineffective. The chambers judge concluded that, but for Mi-Sask’s evidence of insurance, it was obvious Mi-Sask would be unable to satisfy a judgment in favour of the City. He also acknowledged that the evidence of insurance was adduced in the context of seeking an exception to a preservation order to fund the expenses of defending the action and that it was not led to demonstrate there was insurance to pay the judgment that might be awarded. He nonetheless found that the City failed to discharge its onus of proof, as it failed to provide sufficient evidence as to the terms of that insurance....