The appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to review an order requiring it to post $250,000 in security for costs.
The appellant argued that the extension was necessary because the original judge indicated he would remain seized of the matter while the appellant attempted to arrange security.
The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time but upheld the original order, finding the judge was entitled to conclude that $250,000 was an appropriate amount for security.
The appellant was granted a further period to post the security.
