Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
RE: Robert freedland (plaintiff/appellant) v. Polten & Hodder (defendant/respondent)
BEFORE: Justice D. Bellamy
COUNSEL: Guillermo Schible, for the respondent, moving party
Robert Freedland, in person, for the appellant, responding party
HEARD AT TORONTO: October 10, 2008
E N D O R S E M E N T
Bellamy, J.
[1]
Introduction
This is the second of two motions I heard today involving these two parties.
2This is a motion for an order for security for costs for the plaintiff/appellant’s appeal under Rule 61.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on two bases:
a. There is good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant has insufficient funds in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal; and
b. Aside from the costs award of the underlying appeal, the appellant has an unpaid fees assessment report that has been confirmed on appeal, and a related costs award in another proceeding.
[3]
Analysis
Insofar as the first ground is concerned, I am not satisfied that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious.
4Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the unpaid fees assessment and related costs award amount to $3,200, plus post-judgment interest. These amounts have not been paid because the appellant asked the respondent for an indulgence while he approaches the Ministry of Attorney General about ordering an investigation into the assessment officer. The respondent has agreed to this. As a result, I see no reason to order the appellant to post security for costs.
[5]
Disposition
The motion is dismissed.
[6]
Costs
Given that there has been mixed success between this motion and the appellant’s motion, there will no order as to costs.
Bellamy, J.
DATE heard: October 10, 2008
Date released: October 14, 2008