K. MacLean

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs and a stay of previous costs orders made against him.

The plaintiff had previously obtained summary judgment for indemnification regarding an estate administration and intended to withdraw the remaining claims.

The court found that ordering security for costs would have no practical significance, as the only remaining step was the plaintiff's motion to withdraw the claim.

The court also found no reason to stay the previous costs orders.

The defendant's motions were dismissed.

In a construction lien action, the defendant contractor sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring an interlocutory motion for security for costs and requested that the plaintiff post $75,000.

The court held that leave may be granted where the proposed interlocutory step is necessary to ensure procedural fairness, particularly where there is evidence suggesting the corporate plaintiff may lack sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

After reviewing evidence including outstanding writs, multiple lien actions, and insufficient financial disclosure, the court found good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked adequate assets.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, but in a reduced amount proportionate to the lien claim and the security already posted to vacate the lien.