2 total
Motion for security for costs granted; corporate plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of principals' impecuniosity.
The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Delaware limited liability company.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity.
The court found that the defendant met the initial onus under Rule 56.01(1) as the plaintiff resided outside Ontario and lacked sufficient assets in the province.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish impecuniosity, as it did not provide full financial disclosure regarding its principals' assets and ability to raise funds.
The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in tranches.
Appeal of case management order regarding electronic discovery costs dismissed; no procedural unfairness found.
The appellants appealed a case management judge's order requiring them to reimburse the respondent for the costs of a forensic review of backup tapes containing email communications.
The motion judge found that the appellants had failed to comply with their documentary discovery obligations and had made misstatements about their review of the backup tapes.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and concluding that the relief granted was procedurally fair and within the scope of the motion.
