“Rule 61.06(1)(c) [of the Rules of Civil Procedure] permits ordering security for costs for “other good reason.” As Jamal J.A., as he then was, stated in Heidari v. Naghshbandi, 2020 ONCA 757, 153 OR (3d) 756, at para. 23, any “other good reason” must be: (1) consistent with the purpose for ordering security — namely, that the respondent is entitled to a measure of protection for costs; and (2) fairly compelling, because the residual category is only engaged where the respondent cannot meet the requirements of rules 61.06(1)(a) or (b).” Examples include where the appellant has committed fraud, or taken steps to put assets out of reach such that it may be very difficult to collect costs.
I recognize that security for costs orders are not to be made routinely. As Jamal J.A. noted in Heidari at para. 6:
Rule 61.06(1) requires a two-stage analysis: first, the respondent must show that they meet the terms of the rule; second, the motion judge must “take a step back” and consider the justness of the order sought in all the circumstances, with the interests of justice at the forefront….In considering the justness of the order sought, relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the merits of the appeal, any delay in moving for security for costs, the impact of actionable conduct by the respondent on the available assets of the appellant, access to justice concerns, the public importance of the litigation and the amount and form of security sought by the respondent….An order for security for costs is intended to provide ‘a measure of protection’ to the respondent for the costs to be incurred on the appeal, without denying the appellant a chance to pursue an appeal. …. The court must ensure that an order for security for costs is not used as a litigation tactic to prevent a case from being heard on its merits. [citations omitted]”