Court Reaffirms Limits On Norwich Orders In Crypto Asset Disputes

In Nivora Group LLC v. Ping et al., 2026 ONSC 2943, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion for a Norwich order seeking third-party disclosure from two cryptocurrency exchanges in an alleged asset misappropriation dispute. The Court's decision stands as an important reminder that Norwich orders are exceptional remedies and cannot be invoked to circumvent the usual discovery process.

Background: The Request for Disclosure

In Nivora, the underlying dispute arose from the creation of a crypto asset token called TDCCP, short for "Take Down the Chinese Communist Party". TDCCP is a meme coin with no inherent value that can be traded for more common crypto assets like USDC (USD Coin) or SOL (used on the Solana blockchain) and later converted into cash.

The plaintiffs, Nivora Group LLC and Action Action Action LLC, alleged that the defendants, who had been involved in developing the token, misappropriated funds by transferring converted TDCCP assets to various wallets. The plaintiffs sought a Norwich order against the cryptocurrency exchanges used by the defendants, on notice to the defendants, hoping to trace unaccounted-for assets and obtain information about the wallet holders.

The defendants opposed the motion on the basis that the plaintiffs were attempting to bypass the ordinary discovery process and that substantial disclosure had already been provided.

Norwich Orders as Extraordinary Remedies

A Norwich order is an equitable remedy that allows a claimant to obtain information from a third party to a dispute. Canadian courts have identified three possible purposes of a Norwich order:

1. to identify wrongdoers;
2. to find and preserve evidence of a wrongdoing or even to determine whether an action exists; and
3. to trace and preserve assets.

The Court reaffirmed that a Norwich order is "to be used sparingly and only where necessary." To justify a Norwich order:

1. the plaintiff must have a bona fide claim or potential claim against a wrongdoer;
2. the person against whom the Norwich order is sought must have a connection to the wrong beyond being a witness to it;
3. the person against whom the Norwich order is sought must be the only practical source of the needed information;
4. the party seeking the disclosure must compensate the person against whom the Norwich order is sought for all expenses arising out of the discovery; and
5. the interests of justice must favour obtaining the information.

The Court's Decision: Norwich Relief Not Necessary

The Court dismissed the motion. While the plaintiffs successfully met the threshold of showing a bona fide or potential claim and established that the crypto exchanges were sufficiently connected to the alleged wrongdoing, this was not enough to prove that third-party productions were necessary or in the interests of justice.

The plaintiffs failed to show that the exchanges were the only "practicable source" of the requested information, nor did they convince the Court that there was an urgent need to locate the unaccounted-for assets. The defendants had already provided extensive information through affidavit evidence, factums, and cross-examinations, and the parties had been discussing a discovery plan that addressed on-chain activity and exchange records.

The Court also found that the plaintiffs' interest in disclosure did not outweigh the interests of protecting the privacy and confidentiality of the unknown wallet holders. In this regard, "the purpose of a Norwich order is not to assist the Plaintiffs in substantiating their claims, quantifying their damages, or determining the extent of the alleged breach."

Takeaways

Nivora is best understood as a reaffirmation of the existing Norwich order framework. The decision reinforces that Norwich orders should not be treated as routine production orders. An applicant must satisfy the Court that the requested disclosure is relevant and necessary, that the third party is the only practicable source, and that the interests of justice favour disclosure. Where the alleged wrongdoers are known, the action has commenced, and the ordinary discovery process can reasonably produce the requested information, a Norwich order is unlikely to be necessary.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.