. . . the judge must not allow himself to become the prisoner of a formula.
The fundamental question in each case is whether the granting of an
injunction is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.
 These observations set out above were noted by Weiler
J.A. in relation to her finding that in order to obtain a Mareva
injunction it is unnecessary to incorporate a requirement that a
dissipation or transfer of assets was pursued for an improper
 In relation to Chitel, Weiler J.A. made the following
observation, at para. 147:
In commenting as he did on the fourth guideline, I am of the opinion that
MacKinnon A.C.J.O. was attempting to encapsulate the essence of the Eng-
lish authorities he had just reviewed and to give guidance as to when the
requirements for granting a Mareva injunction would be met. I do not think
that in recognizing the availability of the remedy in Ontario he meant to
foresee and to foreclose all of the kinds of situations where a Mareva injunc-
tion could be granted.
 Therefore, I think it is clear that when an equitable remedy is sought the court ought to consider the guidelines set out
in Chitel, but ultimately the court must consider what is just or
 Furthermore, I note also that, at para. 154, Weiler J.A.
observed that “the threatened removal of assets outside of Canada is more likely to lead to the granting of a Mareva injunction
because, generally, it is more difficult to enforce a judgment outside the jurisdiction”. These are the very circumstances before
 The usual case is that a party seeks a Mareva injunction
to prevent assets from leaving the jurisdiction. However, Mareva
injunctions have been granted on a worldwide basis with
increasing frequency in our global economy. The purpose of the
injunction in both circumstances is to ensure that a judgment
can be enforced in the exceptional circumstances where the
plaintiff, after making the required full and frank disclosure,
establishes a strong prima facie case on the merits.
 The record before the motion judge included an affidavit of
the trustee sworn August 22, 2014 in which he deposed, at para.
322, that, based on information provided by Lipman Koras, his
lawyers in Hong Kong, the granting of the Mareva injunction in
Ontario would be regarded “as an important step to similar freez-
ing orders being obtained in respect of [the appellants] assets in
Hong Kong”. He specifically indicated, at para. 322( iii), that,
Broadly speaking, in the event that the SFC Litigation Trust is successful at
trial against Chan and a monetary award is made, that award is likely to be
capable of being enforced in Hong Kong at common law assuming the Hong