R. Hine

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiffs under Rules 56.01(1)(d) and (e).

The court found the defendants failed to meet their initial onus to show good reason to believe the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The defendants relied on inadmissible hearsay evidence from an articling student and argued that the plaintiffs' failure to respond to a demand for evidence of assets was sufficient to meet the onus.

The court rejected this argument, holding that an unanswered demand does not reverse the onus onto the plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendants abandoned their motion for summary judgment after the plaintiff successfully moved to extensively amend the statement of claim.

Both parties sought costs of the abandoned motion.

The court found that the plaintiff's late and extensive amendments, which prompted the defendants to reconsider and abandon their motion, constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the presumptive rule that a responding party is entitled to costs of an abandoned motion.

The court awarded costs of the abandoned motion to the defendants in the amount of $33,540.66.