The plaintiff, a former franchisee, sued the franchisor for failing to renew its lease.
The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), which was granted by the motions judge.
The plaintiff appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that the defendants had unreasonably delayed in bringing the motion and that the order would stifle a valid claim.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the defendants had good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets years before bringing the motion, and that the motions judge failed to appreciate the evidence of delay.
The order for security for costs was set aside.
