Legal Blog

Security for Costs

Prasher Steel v. Gateman-Milloy Inc. 2020 Ont SCJ

In a construction case, with a bond, the defendant moved for security for costs. The defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff had insufficient assets to pay costs. The shareholders of the plaintiffs did have equity in their house, but were unable to obtain financing to unlock any of that equity. The judge ruled that the plaintiff had a real possibility of success against the defendant and that the plaintiff was impecunious. The judge refused the order for security, holding that such an order would preclude the impecunious plaintiff from pursuing what appeared to be a meritorious claim.

Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.