“The respondent submits that an order to post security for costs is justified under r. 61.06 which governs security for costs on appeal:
(1) In an appeal where it appears that,
(a) there is good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious and that the appellant has insufficient assets in Ontario to pay the costs of the appeal;
…
a judge of the appellate court, on motion by the respondent, may make such order for security for costs of the proceeding and of the appeal as is just.
…
(2) If an appellant fails to comply with an order under subrule (1), a judge of the appellate court on motion may dismiss the appeal.
For such an order to be granted, the motion judge must: (a) have good reason to believe the appeal has no merit and is therefore frivolous and vexatious, and (b) have good reason to believe the appellant has insufficient assets in Ontario to cover the costs of the appeal: Schmidt v. Toronto-Dominion Bank(1995), 24 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.). As this court observed in Schmidt, at para. 16:
A judge hearing a motion for security for costs may reach the tentative conclusion that an appeal appears to be so devoid of merit as to give “good reason to believe that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious” without being satisfied that the appeal is actually totally devoid of merit.”