Kong Court has jurisdiction over Chan and Chan has assets in Hong Kong
capable of being applied towards the judgment debt. It is anticipated that
jurisdiction of the Hong Kong Court over Chan will be established assuming
Chan, who is a Hong Kong resident, can be served in Hong Kong, although
this is not the exclusive means of establishing jurisdiction. The evidence
that Chan has assets in the jurisdiction is set out above.
 Further, he deposed, at para. 322( iv), that while there
was no specific requirement under Hong Kong law that the
Mareva injunction be obtained in Ontario, where the substantive
proceedings are taking place is a “prerequisite to an application
in Hong Kong”,
However, the Hong Kong court has indicated that, unless circumstances are
demonstrated to show why this approach would not be appropriate, it is
desirable for a worldwide Mareva injunction to be sought from the Court
seized with the substantive dispute between the parties as that court is
likely to have an excellent “feel” for the case, given it has been pleaded in
that court. I am informed by Lipman Karas that this is particularly likely
to be the case on the present facts as the Ontario Court has already had
extensive dealings with the circumstances relating to SFC’s demise and is
the Court most familiar with the case.
 I note that, as pointed out by appellant’s counsel, Sharpe
J.A. also outlined that the English Court of Appeal has set out
guidelines for when permission would be granted to enforce a
worldwide freezing order in another jurisdiction in Dadourian
Group Int. Inc. v. Simms,  1 W.L.R. 2499,  3 All E.R.
48 (C.A.), at para. 25. I note that these guidelines relate to the
enforcement of the order as opposed to the granting of the order
itself. The fact that no court in this jurisdiction has discussed
guidelines for enforcement does not detract from a conclusion
that the order of the motion judge was correctly made.
 It is significant that the appellant worked in Ontario. He
was the chief executive officer of a company carrying on business
in Ontario. The appellant has been sued in this jurisdiction.
He has retained counsel and he has attorned to this jurisdiction.
As counsel for the respondent notes, the appellant appeared
through counsel throughout the CCAA proceeding and is, as
they put it, “not a stranger” to this court. He was a litigant
by choice in the CCAA proceeding. He is also a defendant in an
ongoing class action and is subject to an investigation by the
Ontario Securities Commission. The appellant, as chief executive officer, chose to list Sino-Forrest Corporation in the Toronto
capital markets. He chose to be a director and officer of that
company. The in personam jurisdiction of the court is clear.
 It is also significant that the motion judge found a strong
prima facie case that the appellant committed fraud and that
there was evidence that he dissipated assets.