judge. Similarly, the motion judge’s finding that Emerald Plantations’ undertaking as to damages was sufficient to secure the
appellants’ cost in the action reflects a discretionary exercise of
judgment. The appellant has not established any palpable and
overriding error of fact or error in principle by the motion judge
justifying a reversal of those decisions.
 Courts have accepted undertakings from non-residents
with foreign assets (see SolarBlue LLC v. Aus,  O.J. No.
5800, 2013 ONSC 7638 (S.C.J.), at para. 22; Telesis Technologies,
Inc. v. Sure Controls Systems Inc.,  O.J. No. 4875, 2010
ONSC 5288 (S.C.J.), at paras. 61-67) and the appellant has
pointed to no legal or statutory authority which indicates that
doing so constitutes an error in principle.
 As noted above, as part of its undertaking, Emerald Plantation was obliged to notify the appellant if it experienced a
material change in its financial position affecting its undertaking. If the appellant contends that Emerald Plantation has not
complied with of the order of the motion judge, such an issue can
be brought before the motion judge for his consideration.
 For the reasons given, I would dismiss the appeal. I decline
to set aside or vary the Mareva injunction or grant the relief
sought by the appellant.
 At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, counsel
advised that they had agreed that the successful party be
awarded all inclusive costs of $60,000. The respondent was successful on the appeal and is therefore awarded costs in the
amount agreed upon by counsel.
 PATTILLO J. (dissenting): — I have reviewed the reasons of
my colleague and with great respect, while I agree with her disposition of the appellant’s motion to adduce fresh evidence on
the appeal, I am unable to agree with her reasons dismissing the
appeal. In my view, the learned motion judge erred in granting
the Mareva injunction given that the appellant had no assets in
the jurisdiction. I am further of the view that the motion judge
erred in concluding that the undertaking of Emerald Plantation
Holding Ltd. (“Emerald Plantation”) together with the undertaking of Cosimo Borrelli personally was sufficient security for the
appellant’s damages or costs. Accordingly, I would allow the
appeal and set aside the Mareva injunction.