Bryce Alexander Chandler

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.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision denying it interest on a mortgage for allegedly contravening s. 6 of the Interest Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that s. 6 did not apply because the mortgage did not involve a sinking fund plan, blended payments, or an allowance of interest on stipulated repayments.

The court also rejected the respondent's argument that the appellant failed to prove its prime rate, finding the affidavit evidence sufficient.

Judgment was granted in favour of the appellant for $67,140.83.