Vilko Joseph Zbogar

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal claims by the motion judge in two actions against the Attorney General of Canada and individuals employed by Environment Canada.

The motion judge had ordered security for costs of $230,000 on a joint and several basis.

When the second instalment of $130,000 was not paid by the deadline, the motion judge dismissed the appellant's personal claims while granting the corporate plaintiffs an extension to post the security.

The Court of Appeal found this was a reversible error, holding that the motion judge failed to apply the same balancing exercise to the appellant as he did to the corporate plaintiffs, and that the factual inference that the appellant no longer wished to pursue his claim was not supported by the record.

The defendants moved to dismiss four actions due to the plaintiffs' failure to post security for costs and other alleged breaches of interlocutory orders.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to vary or rescind the security for costs order or, alternatively, for an extension of time.

The court dismissed Patrick Whitty's claims in two actions and granted the corporate plaintiffs an extension until October 31, 2018, to post the outstanding security.

Despite initial inclination that the defendants were more successful, the disclosure of a reasonable offer to settle by the plaintiffs altered the assessment.

The court found both sides engaged in "expensive overkill" by seeking excessive relief instead of agreeing to a reasonable mid-ground.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the motions.

The defendants moved to dismiss four proceedings due to the plaintiffs' failure to post $130,000 security for costs as required by a prior order.

The plaintiffs cross-moved to vary the security for costs order or, alternatively, seek an extension of time.

The court dismissed Patrick Whitty's personal actions, finding he had indicated a lack of interest in proceeding personally by declining to post further security.

For the corporate plaintiffs, the court denied the motion to vary the security for costs order, finding no significant change in circumstances or a gap between ordered security and likely costs.

However, recognizing the overall goal of fair dispute resolution, the court granted the corporate plaintiffs a final extension until October 31, 2018, to post the outstanding security, emphasizing that failure to comply would result in dismissal without further notice.