Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: World Financial Solutions Inc. v. 2573138 Ontario Ltd., 2026 ONCA 259

DATE: 20260409

DOCKET: M56591 (COA-25-CV-0855)

George, Copeland and Wilson JJ.A.

BETWEEN

World Financial Solutions Inc.

Plaintiff

(Respondent/Responding Party)

and

2573138 Ontario Ltd. and Marguerite Alfred

Defendants

(Appellants/Moving Parties)

and

Elise Blouin also knows as Elizabeth Blouin also known as Susan Elizabeth Blouin, Sieta & Pikes Development Limited, 2868395 Ontario Limited,

2664358 Ontario Limited

Third Parties

(Respondents/Responding Parties)

Counsel:

Granville Cadogan, for the moving parties, 2573138 Ontario Ltd. and Marguerite Alfred

Manmeet Kaur Dhaliwal, for the responding parties, Elise Blouin, Sieta & Pikes Development Limited and 2664358 Ontario Limited

Tom Arndt and Manmeet Kaur Dhaliwal, for the responding party, 2868395 Ontario Limited

Daniel Waldman, for the responding party, World Financial Solutions Inc.

Heard and rendered orally: April 7, 2026

On review of the decision of Justice David M. Paciocco of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated December 3, 2025.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] On December 3, 2025, Paciocco J.A. ordered the moving parties to pay security for costs within 30 days of his order, failing which the appeal would be dismissed without the need for a further motion. The moving parties seek to set aside that order.

[2] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. When, as here, a motion judge makes a discretionary decision, that decision is entitled to deference and a reviewing panel will not interfere unless the motion judge committed a legal error or misapprehended material evidence.

[3] In our view, the motion judge did neither. He reviewed the facts of the case and its history, accurately cited and properly applied the applicable test, carefully scrutinized the nature of the appeal, and reasonably concluded that it lacks merit. The motion judge found further that the justice of the case supports granting an order for security for costs. We see no error in his analysis.

[4] In the alternative, the moving parties seek an extension of time to post the security, which is denied.

[5] For these reasons, the motion is dismissed.

[6] The moving parties shall pay all-inclusive costs to each responding party as follows: $2,500 to World Financial; $2,500 to 286 Limited; and $2,500 to the remaining third parties ($7,500 in total).

“J George J.A.”

“J Copeland J.A.”

“D.A. Wilson J.A.”