Motion for security for costs dismissed as out-of-province plaintiff established impecuniosity and claim had merit.
The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) because the plaintiff resides in the United States.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity.
The court found that the plaintiff met the onus of establishing impecuniosity and that the personal injury claim arising from a rear-end collision was not plainly devoid of merit.
The motion for security for costs was dismissed, and costs of $1,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.
SCJSuperior Court of JusticeNov 6, 2019
