H. Wolch

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs under Rules 56.01(1)(d) and (e).

The court found the defendants failed to meet their initial onus to show good reason to believe the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The defendants relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence from an articling student and argued that the plaintiffs' failure to respond to a demand for evidence of assets was sufficient to meet the onus.

The court rejected this argument, holding that an unanswered demand does not reverse the onus onto the plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

The parties engaged in a long-running dispute over two oil field joint ventures in Egypt.

Following multiple prior court decisions across Canada, a reference was held to conduct an accounting and valuation of the applicants' interest in the joint venture.

Relying on a joint neutral expert, the court determined the financial calculations.

The court also held that a 500% penalty clause for failing to make a cash call, drafted by the applicant, was an enforceable genuine pre-estimate of damages rather than an unenforceable penalty.

Ultimately, the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents $331,087.33.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs in a construction lien action, alleging the plaintiff had insufficient assets.

The plaintiff did not assert impecuniosity or provide financial documents.

The court granted leave for the motion under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act and ordered the plaintiff to pay $36,000 in security for costs in two installments, plus costs of the motion.