Most people ask for an asset search at the wrong point in the file: after the trial, after the costs award, after the retainer is spent, when the only remaining question is whether any of it can be collected. By then the answer is fixed, and it is often no.
The useful time to ask is before the claim is issued. Not because more is findable then, but because what you find changes whether the lawsuit makes sense at all.
Short answer: your investigative options change sharply the moment you hold a judgment. Before judgment, an asset search is a solvency and collectability assessment built from public and registry sources: land ownership, Personal Property Security Act registrations showing secured lenders and financed vehicles, corporate and business-name records, civil court filings, bankruptcy records, and writs of execution already registered. It cannot reach bank balances, account numbers or tax filings, and no one can lawfully obtain those for you. After judgment, the Rules of Civil Procedure open a different toolkit: an examination in aid of execution under rule 60.18 that compels the debtor to answer under oath, a writ of seizure and sale under rule 60.07, and garnishment under rule 60.08. The most valuable thing a pre-judgment search often delivers is the finding that there is nothing to collect, early enough to matter.
This article deals with statutory enforcement machinery. Treat it as orientation, and have your lawyer confirm how the rules apply to your facts before you act.
Before you sue, an asset search is a collectability assessment
A pre-judgment asset search does not tell you whether you will win. It tells you what winning is worth.
The questions it answers are narrow and financial. Does this person or company own real property, and is there equity in it after the registered mortgages? Are writs already filed against them, putting other creditors ahead of you? Is the operating company an empty shell whose equipment is fully financed and registered to a lender? Has this person been through a bankruptcy, a consumer proposal, or a run of prior lawsuits that ended in unpaid judgments?
A judgment does not expire in Ontario. Section 16(1)(b) of the Limitations Act, 2002 provides that there is no limitation period for a proceeding to enforce a court order. That is useful if a debtor’s circumstances improve later. It is not a reason to spend tens of thousands in fees pursuing someone whose only asset is a financed vehicle with negative equity. A judgment against a person with no seizable property, no garnishable income and no equity is an expensive piece of paper, and finding that out in week two costs a fraction of finding it out in year two.
What is searchable with no court process at all
None of the following requires a lawsuit, a court order or consent.
- Land ownership and registered encumbrances. Ontario’s land registration system is the official record of ownership and of interests such as mortgages and leases, searchable through OnLand, which functions as a virtual Land Registry Office. What matters is not that the person owns a house. It is the equity: title plus every registered charge tells you whether a forced sale leaves anything for an unsecured creditor.
- Secured lenders and financed assets. Section 43(1) of the Personal Property Security Act entitles any person, on payment of the fee, to a registrar’s certificate stating what is registered against a named individual debtor, a named business debtor or a vehicle identification number, and section 43(2) makes that certificate proof of its contents absent evidence to the contrary. It shows which lenders hold security over equipment, inventory, receivables and vehicles, and so how much of a business is already spoken for.
- Writs of execution already registered. Under section 10 of the Execution Act the sheriff maintains an electronic index of writs, and a writ binds personal property from the time it is filed and entered into that index. An execution search reveals creditors who got there first. One caution: under section 10(2) a Small Claims Court writ of seizure and sale of personal property is not entered into the index at all.
- Corporate and business records. Section 10(1) of the Corporations Information Act entitles any person who pays the fee to search and copy filed returns and notices, producing directors, officers, registered offices and business-name ownership.
- Civil court filings. Section 137(1) of the Courts of Justice Act entitles a person, on payment of the prescribed fee, to see any document filed in a civil proceeding unless a statute or court order says otherwise.
- Bankruptcy and insolvency records. Section 11.1(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act requires the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to keep a public record of proposals, bankruptcies, trustee licences and receiver notices, provided on request and payment of the fee.
That is records work, where our locate and research practice does the heavy lifting. Where a subject’s visible footprint does not match their apparent lifestyle, it pairs with open-source intelligence work, covered in What OSINT Means for a Business.
One live wrinkle on beneficial ownership
Where the registered directors are nominees, you want to know who actually controls the corporation, and the law is not uniform. For federal corporations, section 21.303 of the Canada Business Corporations Act makes individual-with-significant-control information public, subject to limited exemptions.
Ontario is different. Section 140.2 of the Business Corporations Act requires an Ontario corporation to keep the same register, but section 140.3 makes it disclosable only to police, tax officials and listed regulators. It is not public, and no investigator can get it for you. Section 6.1 of the Corporations Information Act, which would require Ontario corporations to file significant-control returns, was enacted by 2025, c. 15, Sched. 4, s. 1 and is recorded on e-Laws as not in force.
What is not obtainable, no matter who is asking
Bank account numbers and balances, account activity and statements, and tax filings come up in almost every asset-search inquiry. All of them are off the table, and there is no lawful search for any of it.
Financial institutions hold that information under PIPEDA, and section 7(3) sets out the closed list of circumstances in which an organization may disclose personal information without consent. The one that matters to creditors is section 7(3)(c): disclosure required to comply with a subpoena, warrant or court order, or with rules of court relating to production. A private request from a creditor or an investigator is not on that list. Section 7(3)(d.1) permits organization-to-organization disclosure for investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of law, but it is permissive and narrow, and no bank uses it to hand a stranger a customer’s balance. Our PIPEDA and privacy overview sets out those boundaries more generally.
Why “bank account search” offers are a warning sign
Operators advertise bank account searches with a turnaround time and a flat price. What is being described is pretexting: someone calls the bank posing as the account holder or a bank employee and talks a clerk into a disclosure.
That is not a grey area. Fraudulently personating another person with intent to obtain property or an interest in property is identity fraud under Criminal Code section 403, punishable by up to ten years on indictment. Obtaining or possessing another person’s identity information with intent to use it to commit an indictable offence involving fraud, deceit or falsehood is identity theft under section 402.2. Obtaining anything by deceit or other fraudulent means is fraud under section 380.
For a litigant the practical consequence is worse than the legal risk. Evidence obtained that way is unusable, its origin is discoverable, and the party who commissioned it ends up explaining its provenance to a judge. If a firm offers you a bank account search, that tells you what its methods are on everything else. Verifying the licence is the first check to run.
What a judgment unlocks
Once you hold an order for the payment or recovery of money, rule 60.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure lists the enforcement routes: a writ of seizure and sale, garnishment, a writ of sequestration and the appointment of a receiver. Three of them matter to most creditors.
Examination in aid of execution
This is the tool with no pre-judgment equivalent, and the reason sequence matters.
Rule 60.18(2) allows a creditor to examine the debtor about the reason for non-payment, their income and property, the debts owed to and by them, any disposal of property before or after the order was made, their present, past and future means to satisfy the order, whether they intend to obey it, and any other matter pertinent to enforcement. Rule 60.18(3) extends this to an officer or director of a corporate debtor, or a partner or sole proprietor, and rule 34.10(3) lets the notice require production of documents.
The limits are real. Rule 60.18(4) permits only one examination in a twelve-month period in the same proceeding unless the court orders otherwise, so it has to be prepared properly rather than used as a fishing trip. Rule 60.18(7) requires personal service of the notice or an alternative to it, so you need a current address and sometimes someone who can find the person.
Two provisions give it teeth. Rule 60.18(5) allows a judge to make a contempt order where it appears from the examination that the debtor concealed or made away with property to defeat or defraud creditors. Rule 60.18(6) allows the court, where difficulty arises concerning enforcement, to order the examination of any person who may have knowledge of those matters, which reaches bookkeepers, spouses and business partners.
In the Small Claims Court the parallel provision, rule 20.10 of O. Reg. 258/98, is in one respect more demanding: an individual debtor must complete a financial information form (Form 20I) and serve it on the creditor under rule 20.10(4.1)(b), and bring supporting documents under rule 20.10(4.2).
Writ of seizure and sale
Rule 60.07 governs issuance. A writ may be filed with a sheriff under rule 60.07(5.1), and once filed and entered in the index under section 10(1) of the Execution Act it binds the debtor’s personal property. Against land, a filed writ is what stops a clean sale from closing.
Timing matters. Under rule 60.07(6) a writ expires on the sixth anniversary of its issue unless renewed, and renewal is a filing step, not a motion. Under rule 60.07(2), if six years or more have elapsed since the order, leave of the court is required first.
Garnishment
Rule 60.08(1) permits a creditor to garnish debts payable to the debtor by other persons. A bank account is a debt owed by the bank to its customer, so garnishment is the lawful route to funds no search will disclose to you directly.
- Rule 60.08(4) requires an affidavit naming each garnishee and stating the grounds for believing they are or will become indebted to the debtor. You need a basis, not a guess.
- Rule 60.08(10) requires that where the garnishee is a financial institution, the notice be served at the branch at which the debt is payable. Identifying the institution and branch is legitimate investigative work. Obtaining the balance is not, and is not necessary.
- Rule 60.08(11) makes the garnishee liable to pay the sheriff within ten days of service, or ten days after the debt becomes payable, whichever is later. Under rule 60.08(15) a garnishee who disputes or pays less must serve and file a garnishee’s statement (Form 60I) within ten days. That is where account information actually surfaces: through the process, under compulsion, on the record.
- Rule 60.08(13)(a) excludes money in an account opened after the notice was served, and rule 60.08(1.1) limits a jointly payable debt to one half unless the court orders otherwise under rule 60.08(16).
Wages are separate. Section 7(2) of the Wages Act exempts 80 per cent of wages from seizure or garnishment, leaving 20 per cent for an ordinary creditor, and section 7(3) exempts 50 per cent where the order is for support or maintenance. Under sections 7(4) and 7(5) a judge may vary the exemption on motion.
What a judgment still does not reach
The bounds on enforcement explain why some judgments are uncollectable even against someone who visibly owns things.
Section 2 of the Execution Act exempts certain property from forced seizure or sale at the debtor’s option, up to amounts prescribed by O. Reg. 657/05. In the consolidation in force since 19 December 2025:
| Exempt property (Execution Act s. 2) | Prescribed amount |
|---|---|
| Household furnishings and appliances | $17,091 |
| Tools and property used to earn income | $17,362 |
| Same, debtor engaged solely in farming | $37,820 |
| One motor vehicle | $8,578 |
| Equity in a principal residence | $12,997 |
Necessary clothing is exempt without a cap, as are aids and devices required for a disability or medical condition. Where value exceeds the prescribed amount the property becomes seizable, with the exempt amount paid to the debtor from the proceeds.
Bankruptcy resets the board. Under section 70(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, a bankruptcy order or assignment takes precedence over judgments, garnishments and executions, except those completely executed by payment and the rights of secured creditors. An unexecuted writ is not a priority position.
One carve-out matters where the claim involves dishonesty. Section 178(1)(d) and (e) provide that a discharge does not release the bankrupt from debts arising out of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, or from obtaining property or services by false pretences or fraudulent misrepresentation. How a claim is pleaded at the outset can decide whether the judgment survives a discharge, which is a live consideration in employee fraud files.
Freezing assets before judgment is a lawyer’s call
Occasionally a creditor does not want an assessment, they want the assets held. That is possible, and rare.
A Mareva-type injunction is granted under section 101(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which allows an interlocutory injunction where it appears to a judge to be just or convenient. Procedure is under rule 40, and rule 40.02(1) limits an injunction granted without notice to ten days. The governing authority is Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 2, where the Supreme Court held that unless there is a genuine risk of disappearance of assets, inside or outside the jurisdiction, the injunction will not issue. The Court also confirmed that it is in personam and affords no priority to the potential creditor. Freezing is not securing.
A different tool applies where an interest in land is genuinely in question: a certificate of pending litigation under section 103 of the Courts of Justice Act, available only under a court order (rule 42.01(1)).
The role division is plain. Investigators develop and document the factual record: the transfers, the timing, the corporate layering. Whether that record supports an application, and whether the undertaking as to damages is worth the risk, is a legal judgment. If someone selling investigative services says they can freeze a bank account, they are describing something they cannot do.
The order most people get wrong
The sequence that wastes the least money looks like this.
- Assess collectability before you fund the claim. Land, PPSA, corporate records, existing writs, insolvency and litigation history. The cheapest step, and the one most likely to change your decision.
- Shape the pleading with enforcement in mind. Where the facts support fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, pleading it properly is what preserves the claim through a later bankruptcy under BIA section 178(1).
- Refresh the search before judgment. Writs get filed, properties get sold, security gets registered.
- Use the post-judgment tools in order. File the writ, examine under rule 60.18, then garnish on what the examination produced. A prepared examination beats guessing at a garnishee and burning your one shot per twelve months.
- Re-check if the judgment goes unpaid. There is no limitation period on enforcing a court order, and a debtor who inherits property or buys a house is newly exposed.
What to do next
If you are deciding whether to sue, get the collectability picture first, in writing. A proper report names its sources, separates what was confirmed from what was inferred, shows the encumbrances rather than just the ownership, and says where a search came back empty. A report that will not tell you what it could not find is not telling you much.
If you already hold a judgment that is not being paid, the useful work is narrower: a serviceable address for the notice of examination, the correct corporate entity, the institution and branch for a garnishment, and documented transfers if property may have been moved. Our locate and research work is built for that, and OSINT work fills in connections registry searches will not show.
If the answer comes back that there is nothing there, that is not a failed search. That is the search doing its job before you spent the money.
To talk through a specific file, contact us or assign a case. We will tell you honestly if we do not think the search is worth running.
Ontario legal context
Investigation for remuneration in Ontario is licensed under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 and O. Reg. 363/07. Registry access comes from Personal Property Security Act s. 43, Corporations Information Act s. 10, Courts of Justice Act s. 137 and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act s. 11.1. Enforcement runs through rules 60.07, 60.08 and 60.18 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and rule 20 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court, bounded by Execution Act s. 2 and Wages Act s. 7. Bank-held information is protected by PIPEDA, and obtaining it by deception engages Criminal Code ss. 380, 402.2 and 403.
This article is general information about investigative practice in Ontario, not legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different. For advice about your specific circumstances, consult a licensed Ontario lawyer or contact a licensed investigator directly.
Frequently asked questions
Can a private investigator find someone’s bank accounts in Ontario?
No. Account numbers and balances are not lawfully obtainable by any investigator, in Ontario or anywhere in Canada. A bank will not disclose them without a court order or the customer’s consent. Anyone offering a bank account search is describing pretexting, which means impersonating the account holder or a bank employee to trick a disclosure. That conduct engages Criminal Code offences including identity fraud under section 403 and fraud under section 380.
What can be searched before I sue someone in Ontario?
A substantial amount, all of it from public or registry sources: land ownership through Ontario’s land registration system, secured lenders and financed vehicles through the Personal Property Security Act registry, writs of execution already filed against the person, corporate directorships and business-name ownership through the Ontario Business Registry, civil court filings, and bankruptcy or insolvency records held by the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy.
What is an examination in aid of execution?
It is a post-judgment examination under rule 60.18 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure. A judgment creditor can compel the debtor to answer questions under oath about income, property, debts owed to and by them, disposals of property before or after the judgment, and their means to pay. Only one examination is permitted in any twelve-month period in the same proceeding unless the court orders otherwise.
How much of a debtor’s wages can be garnished in Ontario?
Under section 7 of the Wages Act, 80 per cent of wages are exempt from seizure or garnishment, so 20 per cent is available to an ordinary judgment creditor. For enforcement of a support or maintenance order, 50 per cent is exempt. A judge may increase or decrease the exemption on motion, having regard to the nature of the debt and the person’s financial circumstances.
Is it worth suing someone with no assets?
Often it is not. A judgment against a person with no seizable assets, no garnishable income and no equity in real property is an expensive piece of paper. It does not expire, because there is no limitation period on enforcing a court order under section 16 of the Limitations Act, 2002, but an unenforceable judgment still costs money to obtain. Establishing this before you fund a lawsuit is frequently the most valuable result an asset search produces.
Can assets be frozen before a judgment is obtained?
Only in exceptional cases, and only by court order. A Mareva-type injunction under section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act freezes assets pending trial, but the Supreme Court held in Aetna Financial Services v. Feigelman that it will not issue absent a genuine risk that assets will disappear. It is granted rarely, carries an undertaking as to damages, and is a decision for your lawyer, not your investigator.