The defendants appealed a master's order dismissing their motions for security for costs against corporate plaintiffs who had ceased operations and lacked assets in Ontario.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not impecunious because the principals had personal assets, including an unencumbered home and retirement savings.
The court held that the master did not err in concluding the plaintiffs were genuinely impecunious and that requiring security would force abandonment of the claim.
The court accepted that the principals' assets were effectively constrained by debts, potential tax liabilities, and the need to fund the litigation.
Because the claim was not plainly devoid of merit, the master properly exercised discretion to refuse security for costs.
