The court considered whether the plaintiffs could post security for costs by way of a third-ranking charge against real property, rather than in cash or by letter of credit.
The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient sworn evidence regarding the value and equity of the property, nor had they demonstrated that the proposed security would be a reliable and accessible source of funds for the defendants.
The court declined to approve the third-ranking mortgage as security and ordered that security be posted in an acceptable form, such as cash or a letter of credit, extending the deadline for posting security by one week.