These circumstances reflect the “overriding consideration”
described in Feigelman, qualifying the respondent to obtain
a Mareva injunction.
 Considering the Ontario court’s in personam jurisdiction,
the purpose of a Mareva injunction, and the evolutionary development of this equitable remedy beginning with the guidelines
set out by Lord Denning, as outlined by the Ontario Court
of Appeal in Chitel, I am satisfied that the motion judge committed no error in law in finding it just and convenient to issue the
Issue #2: Did the motion judge err in law in holding that the
respondent’s proposed undertaking as to damages along
with the undertaking from Emerald Plantation was
a sufficient undertaking and was sufficient to provide
 The appellant sought leave to adduce two pieces of fresh
evidence: a writ of summons filed against the appellant with the
Hong Kong court in 2013 and a public notice of the sale of, what
the appellant indicates is, a majority of Emerald Plantation’s
assets on June 7, 2016.
 Fresh evidence may be admitted if it meets the four criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Palmer,
 1 S.C.R. 759,  S.C.J. No. 126, 106 D.L.R. (3d) 212:
the evidence was not available at the time the motion was
heard, the evidence is relevant in the sense that it bears upon a
decisive issue on the motion, it is credible in the sense that it is
reasonably capable of belief and if believed it could reasonably,
when taken with the other evidence presented on the motion, be
expected to have affected the result.
 The writ of summons does not meet the Palmer test. It is
only relevant to the issue of jurisdiction and whether a court
in Ontario was the proper forum to issue a Mareva injunction.
Given the scope of the appeal established by Pattillo J. in granting
leave to appeal, the writ of summons is not relevant to the appeal.
As noted above, the appellant has attorned to this jurisdiction.
 In relation to the notice of sale, I find that it does meet
the Palmer test. The sale did not occur until June 7, 2016.
Evidence of the sale is credible and uncontradicted. The sale of
assets is relevant to whether Emerald Plantation’s undertaking
is sufficient to provide security for costs and damages.
 However, although I am prepared to admit the notice
of sale as fresh evidence on the appeal, I observe that the sufficiency of the undertaking as to damages ordered by the motion
judge is a question of fact and was in the discretion of the motion