that the trustee provide a proper undertaking for damages; that
the trustee post security for his undertaking; and requiring the
trustee to post security for costs.
 The trustee’s second affidavit, which is 99 pages long and
contains 311 paragraphs, makes no mention of the undertaking.
 On the return of the motion, the respondent attached as
Schedule “D” to its factum a letter from Emerald Plantation
dated August 12, 2015 signed on its behalf by James Dubow,
its chief executive officer. The letter provides, among other
things, that if the Ontario court was not prepared to accept the
adequacy of the trustee’s undertaking, Emerald Plantation
agreed “to provide a similar undertaking in damages to the
Court in respect of the Mareva injunction in support of the Trustee’s claim against the Defendant”. The letter further states that
“if necessary”, Emerald Plantation will undertake to pay any
costs orders made against the trustee in the action.
 The letter sets out that Emerald Plantation was a newly
incorporated entity owned by certain creditors of Sino-Forest
Corporation (“SFC”) which, pursuant a plan of compromise and
reorganization under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 and the Canada Business Corporations
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-44 involving SFC, received substantially
all SFC’s assets and business. The letter also refers to consolidated financial statements of Emerald Plantation which indicated it had net assets of US$348,681,000 as at December 31,
2013. Mr. Dubow further confirmed that Emerald Plantation’s
net assets as at December 31, 2014 were US$226 million.
 In his January 21, 2016 reasons for decision confirming
the Mareva, the motion judge directed (para. 64) that the trustee
provide his personal undertaking as to damages. However,
because it was not clear on the evidence that the trustee had
sufficient assets within the jurisdiction to satisfy the appellant’s
potential damages arising from the Mareva injunction, the
motion judge further ordered that Emerald Plantation must also
provide an undertaking as to damages on “essentially the same
terms as the draft undertaking as to damages attached as
Appendix D to the plaintiff’s factum”.
 In addition, based on the undertaking in the Dubow letter
to pay costs, the motion judge stated he was satisfied that the
undertaking as to damages by Emerald Plantation was sufficient to protect the appellant with respect to his costs (para. 65).
 In my view, the determination of the sufficiency of an
undertaking as to damages is discretionary and, accordingly, can
only be set aside if the motion judge misdirected himself
or where the decision is so clearly wrong that it amounts to an