The defendants by counterclaim brought a motion for security for costs against foreign corporate and individual plaintiffs by counterclaim under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The responding parties cross‑moved for security for costs against the original plaintiff, arguing that it lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs order.
The court held that although the foreign plaintiffs had no assets in Ontario and therefore technically met the threshold for security, their counterclaim largely mirrored the factual matrix of their defence.
Exercising its discretion, the court found that ordering security would effectively require a defendant to post security merely to defend the action.
The cross‑motion was also refused because granting security would effectively fund the counterclaim of a non‑resident party with no assets in Ontario.
Both motions were dismissed and no order for costs was made.
