Daniel Laurentiu Brinza

This is a costs endorsement following a previous decision.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants/moving parties to pay the respondents/responding parties an agreed-upon all-inclusive amount of $3,500 in costs.

The moving parties sought a stay of a Court of Appeal decision requiring them to post security for costs of their appeal and trial costs, pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion was dismissed as the court found no serious issue of public importance, no irreparable harm (especially given the responding parties' undertaking to hold funds in trust), and the balance of convenience favoured dismissal due to the moving parties' history of delaying tactics.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard two motions within an ongoing appeal: one by the appellants to set aside a prior order for security for judgment and costs, and another by the respondents to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance.

The court granted the appellants' motion in part, setting aside the requirement for security for the judgment amount but affirming the order for security for trial and appeal costs.

The respondents' motion to dismiss the appeal was dismissed as moot.

The court allowed the appellants to retract a previous concession regarding the appeal's frivolousness.

The moving parties, Room Full of Spoons, sought security for a trial judgment and costs, or alternatively, to lift a stay pending appeal, against the appellants, Wiseau Studio and Tommy Wiseau.

The motion arose from a history of litigation misconduct by the appellants, including obtaining an improper ex parte injunction, delaying proceedings, and failing to disclose assets in Ontario.

The court granted the motion, ordering the appellants to post security for the trial judgment and costs, finding that exceptional circumstances warranted the order due to the appellants' ex juris residence, lack of assets in the jurisdiction, and frivolous appeal, which created prejudice for the respondents.

The plaintiffs moved under Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary a prior judgment, seeking to reopen the trial to introduce new evidence and obtain a letter of request for additional evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the "new" evidence was available before trial with reasonable diligence and would not have changed the result.

The court emphasized the stringency of the test for reconsideration and found the motion to be another tactical attempt to delay.