A Canadian fraud investigation traced bitcoin to an overseas exchange. How far can an Ontario court’s freezing order reach?
The Supreme Court of Canada will hear that jurisdictional dispute after granting leave to appeal on October 1 in Nest Exchange Limited v. His Majesty the King. The case concerns Canadian criminal property orders affecting people or assets outside Canada. The Court has agreed to hear the appeal; it has not decided which jurisdictional test governs.
From a Canadian fraud allegation to an overseas exchange
According to the Supreme Court’s case summary, investigators allegedly traced approximately $65,000 in bitcoin transferred by a Canadian fraud victim to three accounts at an exchange headquartered in Seychelles. Ontario’s Attorney General sought orders restraining and managing the cryptocurrency.
The Ontario proceedings applied the approach in British Columbia (Attorney General) v. Brecknell, 2018 BCCA 5. The appeal raises its relationship with the territorial principles addressed in Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, and Sharp v. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2023 SCC 29. Leave was granted from the Superior Court’s December 2025 judgment, 2025 ONSC 7113.
Why the jurisdictional test matters
The practical problem is easy to describe: an investigation begins in Canada, but the institution holding the relevant assets operates abroad. The legal question is which connections permit a Canadian court to make an order with effects beyond its borders.
For lawyers following cryptocurrency investigations, that distinction matters. Tracing an asset and establishing judicial authority over the institution holding it are separate steps. Evidence showing where bitcoin moved may help identify the target of an application, while leaving a substantial jurisdictional dispute unresolved.
The eventual reasons could therefore become important to the preparation and resistance of cross-border criminal property applications. Counsel will be watching how the Court approaches the relationship between the Canadian investigation, the property, the overseas custodian and any relevant Canadian corporate connections.
What the appeal could clarify
For prosecutors, the appeal presents a question about the reach of investigative and preservation tools when assets move through foreign institutions.
For exchanges and their counsel, it raises a corresponding question: what connection to Canada is sufficient to expose an overseas business to a Canadian criminal property order?
For lawyers assisting fraud victims, the significance is more immediate. Identifying cryptocurrency associated with an alleged fraud is only part of the recovery problem. Counsel also need to assess which court can act, against whom, and through what procedure.
Those are the potential implications of the appeal, rather than conclusions the Supreme Court has already reached.
A case to watch beyond cryptocurrency
Although bitcoin supplies the factual setting, the jurisdictional issue could interest lawyers handling other forms of property held across borders. The central concern is how Canadian judicial authority operates when an order has consequences abroad.
For now, the development is procedural but consequential: Canada’s highest court will examine the dispute. Any prediction that the Court has already expanded - or restricted - Canadian authorities’ power to freeze overseas cryptocurrency would be premature.
Primary source: Supreme Court of Canada case information, docket 42220 .
Related coverage: EU Council Backs Greater ESMA Supervision of Major Financial Markets.