Fraud Awareness – we publish Fraud Awareness blog posts as large-scale frauds continue unabated in Canada.  Our firm often reminds fraud victims that they cannot reasonably rely on Canada’s criminal system for recovery or justice in fraud matters. The criminal courts govern prosecutions by what is in the public interest, not private interests, and by what the Crown assesses as a “reasonable prospect of conviction”. Victims should assess whether their interests are better served with civil court injunction processes as opposed to relying on the criminal system for justice or recovery.

Case Summary

Marlowe et al v Barlas et al, 2025 NWTSC 12

Judgment: March 10, 2025

Law Society of Ontario v.  Rogerson, 2025 ONLSTH 103

Judgment: August 7, 2025

Victims of fraud often suspect that their stolen money is used to fund a rogue’s legal defence. It is quite rare that evidence is obtained to support this suspicion. The decisions in Marlowe et al v Barlas et al,2025 NWTSC 12 (“Marlowe”) and the Law Society of Ontario v.  Rogerson, 2025 ONLSTH 103, give some insight into the remedy available to a fraud victim when such evidence is obtained.

The Marlowe case focuses on the actions of lawyer Andrew Rogerson. He was ordered to return the funds and pay full indemnity costs and later was suspended from practicing law. The funds have not been surrendered, but Rogerson has appealed the judicial decision, meaning there is no basis for contempt of court proceedings for the time being.

Background

In 2015, a First Nation in the Northwest Territories hired Ron Barlas to manage its corporate and commercial interests. Over time, Mr. Barlas directed approximately $11.5M to entities controlled by his wife.

In 2023, the First Nation commenced an oppression application against Mr. Barlas and his wife. At the same time, they obtained a Mareva injunction restraining Mr. Barlas, his wife, and the entities they controlled from dealing with approximately $5.5M of assets.

In 2024, a Court ruled in favour of the First Nation, finding that there was “no doubt” that Mr. Barlas breached his fiduciary duties in an extreme and egregious manner: Marlowe et al v. Barlas et al, 2024 NWTSC 39. Mr. Barlas appealed – his appeal was dismissed: Marlowe et al v. Barlas et al, 2025 NWTCA 6. 

For a decision on Mr. Barlas’ request to vary the Mareva injunction for increased living and legal expenses, see Marlowe et al v Barlas et al, 2025 NWTSC3.

Application of a Mareva Injunction to Retainer Funds

On April 23, 2023, the First Nation served a Notice of Application for the Mareva injunction on Andrew Rogerson, the lawyer initially retained by Mr. Barlas. The lawyer’s firm, Rogerson Law Group, is based in Ontario and advertised itself as specialists in “asset protection”. It continues to do so. See: https://rogerson-law-group-1.torontodirect.ca/ ; and https://www.linkedin.com/company/rogerson-law-corporation/?originalSubdomain=ca .

On April 26, 2023, Mr. Barlas wired $90,000 to Andrew Rogerson. The Rogerson Law Group did not go on record to respond to the motion. Another firm was hired for that purpose. It appears that lawyer Rogerson was retained for “asset protection”, not defence litigation. Specifically, asset protection in the face of a Mareva injunction.

On April 28, 2023, the Court issued a Mareva injunction against Mr. Barlas, his wife, and the entities they controlled. Lawyer Rogerson was aware of the Mareva injunction.

In May, June, October, and November 2023, Rogerson made several withdrawals from this trust account totaling $90,000. No invoices or dockets were produced by Rogerson to Mr. Barlas. Rogerson’s explanation was that he transferred the funds to another law firm’s trust account – but he produced no documentation to support this.

In May 2023, lawyer Rogerson facilitated the shipment of more than $1 million worth of gold and silver bullion from Mr. Barlas’ possession in the Northwest Territories to his offices in Ontario in knowing breach of the Mareva Order. The bullion has since been recovered.

The $90,000 transferred from Rogerson’s trust account was eventually discovered, and the First Nation brought a motion for Rogerson to return the funds.

In February 2024, Rogerson provided an affidavit to the Court stating that he had been “very ill for some time” and would be unable to proceed on the motion. As is evident from subsequent events, this was likely false.  The application was rescheduled to May 2024.

On April 11, 2024, lawyer Rogerson refused to be cross-examined by counsel for the First Nation. On May 16, 2024, the court issued an order to compel his attendance. When Rogerson did attend, he failed to provide any meaningful evidence as to what had happened to the $90,000. Rogerson also failed to pay the costs of the motion.

On December 9, 2024, Rogerson did not attend a case management conference, notwithstanding that he had been given notice. A hearing date was scheduled.

On March 3, 2025, lawyer Rogerson did not attend the hearing. After the motion commenced a doctor’s letter was sent to the Court indicating that Rogerson did not attend for medical reasons. The court dismissed the adjournment request, noting that no one else from Rogerson’s firm attended to speak to the matter, and the letter did not appear bona fide.

On March 10, 2025, the Court ordered lawyer Rogerson to return the $90,000 to the account from which it had been sent – an account subject to the Mareva injunction. The Mareva injunction was varied to permit acceptance of the transfer. Rogerson was ordered to pay full indemnity costs of $46,995.54. The Court provided solicitor Rogerson 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order to move to re-open the motion and explain himself.

Law Society Proceedings

Solicitor Rogerson did not move to re-open the motion and explain himself.

On May 5, 2025, the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”) filed a Notice of Motion seeking an interlocutory suspension of Rogerson’s licence. A hearing date was scheduled for July 4, 2025. On the day of the hearing, lawyer Rogerson filed over 700 pages of documents – essentially being documents supporting his appeal of the March 10, 2025, court order.

On July 14, 2025, Rogerson filed a 76-page set of submissions. Rogerson did not have counsel for the law society hearing. 

On August 7, 2025, the LSO concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that lawyer Rogerson is a significant risk to the public and to the public interest in the administration of justice and suspended his licence on an interlocutory basis.

The Law Society panel noted that Rogerson provided no invoices to justify the withdrawals from his trust account and could not show that any work was performed. The LSO relied on the Court’s finding that the purported fees were a contrivance to justify draining the retainer – to state otherwise, that the lawyer had misappropriated or misapplied trust funds.

Most importantly, the LSO found lawyer Rogerson’s actions of defiance of the Mareva injunction had “the potential to victimize the First Nation” – an issue that depended on the outcome of the litigation the First Nation had with Mr. Barlas.

The LSO held that allegations of misappropriating or misapplying trust funds are serious. So are the allegations that the lawyer consciously defied a court order and obstructed a court process. The LSO held that if proven, such conduct would demonstrate that the lawyer profoundly lacks integrity as a lawyer.

The LSO hearing on the merits remains outstanding as solicitor Rogerson’s appeal of the judicial decision remains outstanding.  As mentioned above, the appeal of Mr. Barlas with respect to the oppression application and the Mareva injunction was dismissed.

Contempt and Funds Restrained in a Lawyer’s Trust Account by a Mareva Injunction

Most of us are familiar with the story in Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17. In that case, the Court held that a lawyer breached the terms of a Mareva injunction by transferring $440,000 held in his trust account to his client when his client and the funds were subject to a Mareva injunction. The Court held that the lawyer was in contempt of court.

The lawyer’s defence was that he did not know the Mareva injunction applied to funds held in his trust account, and the client instructed him to return the funds. The Court held that it did not matter that the lawyer did not knowingly choose to disobey the order – the Mareva injunction applied to the funds held in his trust account.

Approximately two years later, the LSO (in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Carey, 2017 ONLSTH 25), held that this case warranted a departure from the general rule that a lawyer’s breach of a court order and/or a finding of contempt will lead to a finding of professional misconduct. The LSO held that the lawyer acted in good faith by doing what he honestly believed was right and, in making his decision to return the trust funds, he considered his ethical obligations.

The LSO held that the lawyer had a reasonable but mistaken basis for acting as he did but made an error in judgment as opposed to knowingly breaching a court order. The LSO held that the lawyer’s conduct did not bring discredit upon the profession and therefore, it was not professional misconduct.

Our Observations: what is missing from this story of Mr. Barlas and solicitor Rogerson is how the $90,000 transfer from Rogerson’s trust account came to light. In Mareva cases, it is common that asset declaration and tracing of funds examinations are ordered in support of the Mareva injunction, and unauthorized transfers are discovered through this process.

We also note that neither the Court in the Marlowe case nor the LSO raised issues of privilege. Privilege belongs to Mr. Barlas, and perhaps he simply waived it. Privilege may also be waived in other ways. There are cases that have discussed the problem of privilege frustrating the tracing of funds that should be subject to Mareva injunctions: Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, 2025 ONSC 1262.

Information concerning the existence and nature of a solicitor-client relationship, including the fact and nature of a lawyer’s retainer, the identity of the lawyer, the client’s legal concerns, objectives or strategies, and the thought processes, strategies, or objectives of the lawyers are matters that are protected from disclosure by solicitor-client privilege: Prosser v. Industrial Alliance Insurance, 2024 ABKB 87, at para. 60.

Another omission from the Marlowe decision is that it does not discuss the purpose of Mareva injunctions and why they are so important to victims such as First Nation. Even though it is obvious, it is important to state the reason it is important to preserve funds by way of a Mareva injunction. The purpose gives reason as to why solicitor Rogerson’s transfer of funds is important. As stated in Ndrive v. Zhou, 2020 ONSC 4568:

The Mareva injunction is a tool designed to address the problem posed when a defendant utilizes the time lag between a claim being prosecuted and a plaintiff’s attainment and execution upon a judgment to divest itself of assets which would otherwise be available to satisfy that judgment in whole or in part. A preservation of assets order…is thus of great utility. It is often the only means by which to preserve exigible assets where other forms of security for payment of a judgment such as liens, charges, cautions or guarantees are unavailable.

Inquiries: At Investigation Counsel, we only act for victims. We are Canada’s only boutique victim-focused fraud recovery firm. We investigate and litigate fraud recovery cases each and every day.

If you discover you are a victim of fraud, contact us to have your case assessed and a strategy for recovery mapped out before contacting police or alerting the fraudster. The Courts grant tracing and freezing orders much more quickly through the civil process than the criminal process, and even if a criminal complaint is made, the police most often do not disclose their findings to victims.

We also promote victim advocacy and academic discussion through various private and public professional associations and organizations. If you have an interest in the topics discussed herein, we welcome your inquiries.