The respondent lawyer, Hugh Scher, brought a motion for security for costs against his former client, Howard Buchin, who was seeking to assess the lawyer's accounts for legal services.
The respondent argued that the assessment applications were frivolous and vexatious and that the applicant had insufficient assets to pay costs, citing a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
While the court accepted that the applicant had insufficient assets, it found no good reason to believe the applications were frivolous or vexatious, noting the absence of pleadings and the Law Society of Ontario's non-investigation of a complaint was not determinative of the merits.
Applying a holistic approach to the justness of the order, the court dismissed the motion for security for costs.
