On three motions for security for costs brought by nine defendants, the court considered Rule 56.01(1)(a), (c), and (d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Where multiple plaintiffs advanced both joint and several claims, the court applied the joint-versus-several claim analysis and held that security could not be ordered for joint claims advanced with an Ontario-resident plaintiff, but could be ordered for claims advanced only by non-resident plaintiffs.
The unpaid prior costs order did not assist the moving defendants because only parties holding the unpaid costs order could rely on that clause, and those parties were no longer defending the action.
The estate plaintiff, as a nominal plaintiff, was also ordered to post security because there was good reason to believe the estate had insufficient assets in Ontario.
Security was ordered in stages and costs of the motions were awarded to three groups of moving defendants.
