The defendant manufacturer brought a motion for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff in a commercial dispute involving alleged breach of a furniture supply arrangement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.
Applying Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient exigible assets and that its financial disclosure lacked the required robust particularity.
The court rejected arguments that the merits of the claim or the overlap with the counterclaim made security unjust.
Security for costs was ordered on a step‑by‑step basis, requiring payment into court pending further proceedings.
