4.22: Considerations for security for costs order
14.67: Security for costs
14.68: No stay of enforcement

Case Summary

The Plaintiff sought Security for Judgment and Security for anticipated Appeal Costs in the Defendants’ Appeal following the Trial of a commercial matter. The relief was being sought as a precondition to the Appeal.

In the 11 years to arrive at Trial, the individual Defendant took a number of steps to move assets out of the Defendant corporation into a limited partnership which he controlled. The Plaintiff obtained Judgment for just over $1 million against the corporation and the individual Defendant at Trial. The Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal, and the Plaintiff filed the Application for Security for Judgment and Security for Costs.

O’Ferrall J.A. held that the Defendant’s disclosure in his Form 13 financial statement of debtor was inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. Due to the inaccurate and misleading disclosure, O’Ferrall J.A. awarded Security for Judgment in the amount of $1 million.

Noting the factors set out in Rule 4.22, His Lordship found it just and reasonable to award Security for anticipated Appeal Costs in the amount of $25,000. Justice O’Ferrall noted that Security for Costs is a discretionary remedy which balances a number of considerations, including the reasonable expectations and rights of the parties. His Lordship noted that the Orders were very unlikely to prejudice the Defendants’ ability to continue the Appeal. The Applications were granted.

View CanLII Details