On a motion in related leave applications, the moving parties sought an order requiring multiple opposing parties to post $3,250,000 as security for amounts payable if appeals were unsuccessful.
The Court held that security under s. 60(1)(b) of the Supreme Court Act has traditionally been symbolic and that the substantial security requested is ordinarily addressed in stay proceedings under ss. 65 or 65.1 or equivalent provincial provisions.
The Court found that existing stay conditions imposed by the court below continued to govern and that the motion effectively attempted to review that decision.
The Court also emphasized access-to-court considerations in the leave framework.
The motion was dismissed without costs.
