The defendant landlord sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed its motion for security for costs, particulars, and a further and better Affidavit of Documents.
The motions judge had found the corporate plaintiff and its principal to be genuinely impecunious, making an order for security for costs unjust.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding proportionality and the court's discretion to dispense with strict compliance.