Law360 Canada ( April 21, 2026, 9:40 AM EDT) -- Appeal by appellants and several related corporate entities from a chambers decision. The decision refused to vary a Mareva injunction to permit release of restrained funds for additional living expenses and to pay previously incurred legal fees. The restrained assets, initially valued at approximately $5.5 million, were frozen during an oppression application. Over the course of the litigation, the respondents consented to the release of $1.4 million for the appellants’ living and legal expenses. After the oppression decision found that Barlas breached fiduciary duties and misappropriated millions, and while an appeal remained pending, the appellants applied for release of a further $1.1 million, $675,000 for past legal work, $310,000 for anticipated appeal and damages trial costs, and $153,672 for living expenses. The chambers justice found the Barlas Parties had sufficient funds for reasonable living expenses but not for legal costs, concluded any further release would come from assets over which the respondents had a proprietary claim, and engaged in an equitable balancing of competing interests. He ordered release of $135,000 for future legal costs but declined to release funds for past legal fees or additional living expenses. On appeal, the appellants argued that the chambers justice erred by treating retroactive legal fee payments as impermissible, by relying on findings from the oppression decision, and by unreasonably exercising his discretion. The respondents maintained the chambers justice properly applied the test, correctly considered the strength of the oppression findings, and reasonably refused to dilute proprietary assets to fund unsuccessful defence efforts....