2 total
The court ordered a non-resident corporate plaintiff to post $140,000 in security for costs after finding its claims were not joint with a resident co-plaintiff.
The court considered a motion by the Defendants for security for costs against the Plaintiff Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited (BHF) in a high-value commercial litigation.
The court reviewed the legal framework under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including the justness of ordering security, the merits of the claim, and the financial circumstances of the parties.
The court found that BHF did not have sufficient assets in Ontario, and the claims of BHF and co-plaintiff Rong Kai Hong were not joint such that one could satisfy the other's costs.
The court ordered BHF to post $140,000 as security for costs, balancing the interests of both parties and ensuring access to justice.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's credibility findings and convictions for sexual assault.
The appellant appealed convictions for four counts of sexual assault, one count of assault, and one count of forcible confinement, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability by treating memory gaps and inconsistencies as enhancing factors, and materially misapprehended the evidence.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly grappled with the difficulties in the complainant's evidence, provided rational explanations for her findings, and that her credibility findings were owed deference.
