Zabihullah Yaqeen

Following dismissal of an appeal from a master's order requiring a corporate plaintiff to post security for costs, the court addressed a dispute concerning responsibility for the resulting costs award.

The individual plaintiff argued that only the corporate plaintiff should be liable because the appeal formally related to the corporate entity.

The court found that both plaintiffs had advanced the appeal jointly, shared interests in the litigation, and were represented together without distinction in the materials.

Given the joint strategy and unified presentation of claims, the costs order properly applied to both plaintiffs.

The court confirmed that both plaintiffs were jointly responsible for paying the $30,000 costs award to the defendants.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that one plaintiff was a nominal party and that the corporate plaintiff lacked sufficient assets to satisfy a potential costs award.

The court held that the individual plaintiff was not a nominal plaintiff because he was personally a party to the alleged contract and asserted personal claims in the pleadings.

However, the corporate plaintiff failed to provide reliable financial disclosure demonstrating sufficient assets and had not produced basic financial records or tax filings.

Applying the established two‑step test for security for costs, the court found good reason to believe the corporation could not satisfy a costs order and exercised its discretion to order staged security.

Security of $120,000 for each set of defendants was ordered, payable in three installments tied to the litigation timetable.

Following a consent order restoring a commercial tenant to leased premises after a landlord lockout, the court determined the appropriate costs of the application.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents engaged in aggressive and intimidating conduct, including unsupported allegations about the tenant’s business and delaying litigation steps.

The court held that the respondents’ conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding and warranted sanction.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and proportionality under Rule 57.01 and the guidance in Boucher, the court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis but reduced the requested amount.

Costs of $50,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes were awarded to the applicant.