The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the corporate plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.
The court also addressed a request by the defendant for leave under Rule 39.02(2) to file a late affidavit after cross‑examinations, which was refused because the evidence should have been delivered earlier and did not justify departure from the rule’s purpose of ensuring parties know the case to meet before cross‑examination.
On the security for costs issue, the court found there was good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets, given substantial debts and writs of execution.
However, the plaintiff failed to establish impecuniosity due to insufficient evidence regarding the finances of the shareholder and the principal beneficiary of the action.
Although the claim was found to have a good chance of success, balancing the interests of the parties justified ordering staged security for costs.
