The defendant hotel moved for an order for security for costs against the plaintiff, who resided outside Ontario.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant delayed in bringing the motion and that he was impecunious, meaning an order would stifle a meritorious claim.
The court found the delay was explained and not fatal.
However, the court determined the plaintiff was impecunious and his negligence claim against the hotel for failing to provide appropriate security was not plainly devoid of merit.
The motion for security for costs was dismissed.
