David E. Greenwood

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order regarding a real estate transaction.

They argued the motion judge erred in applying the test for uniqueness of the property by giving undue emphasis to subjective elements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the test and was entitled to accept the evidence of the respondent's wife regarding the property's uniqueness.

A cross-appeal by the respondent for further damages was also dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The defendants brought parallel motions for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure against corporate and partnership plaintiffs who alleged losses exceeding $1,000,000 arising from a trading incident involving brokerage services and trading software.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court reviewed the financial circumstances of the plaintiffs and their principals and considered whether they could reasonably post security or obtain a letter of credit.

Finding that ordering security would effectively force abandonment of a claim that was not plainly devoid of merit, and that the plaintiffs were effectively impecunious, the court declined to require security for costs.

The motions were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order upholding a Master's decision to set aside a previous order dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The action had been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to post security for costs.

The court found that while there were conflicting decisions regarding the application of Rule 37.14(1)(a), it was not desirable to grant leave to appeal in this case due to its specific circumstances, including the plaintiffs being unrepresented foreign residents at the time of the dismissal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.