Balwinder Singh Sran

The defendants (Owners) successfully moved for security for costs against the plaintiff (2232117 Ontario Inc.) under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The motion also required leave under subsection 67(2) of the Construction Act.

The plaintiff conceded the threshold onus regarding insufficient assets but argued the order would be unjust due to a meritorious claim and tactical purpose.

The court found the merits neutral and no evidence of tactical purpose.

Considering the equitable imbalance where the Owners had posted security for the plaintiff's lien but had no security for their defence costs, the court found an order for security for costs to be just.

The plaintiff was ordered to post $48,000 in security for costs on a staged basis and pay $4,000 in motion costs.

The appellant appealed a committal order under the Extradition Act, arguing the committal judge erred in refusing to order particulars of the conspiracy in the authority to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the authority to proceed complied with s. 15(3)(c) of the Extradition Act, which does not require the Minister of Justice to provide particulars of the corresponding Canadian offences.