“By way of analogy, for appeal purposes in ordinary civil proceedings, an order for security for costs is regarded as a procedural order from which there is no right of appeal. Such an order is interlocutory in nature, incidental to the resolution of the subject matter of the dispute, and, accordingly, an appeal only lies to the Divisional Court with leave: see Susin v. Chapman, [1998] O.J. No. 2472, 1998 CanLII 3224 (C.A.); Shuter v. Toronto Dominion Bank, [2007] O.J. No. 3435, 2007 CanLII 37475 (S.C.J.).
I recognize that failure to satisfy an order for security for costs may lead to a dismissal of the claim, but the sanction for non-compliance with an order cannot alter the nature of the order itself. Many procedural or interlocutory orders — for particulars, for production of documents, for the payment of costs ordered in interlocutory proceedings — may carry the ultimate sanction of dismissal of the non-complying party’s claim. But if the claim is dismissed, the dismissal flows from the party’s failure to comply with the interlocutory or procedural order, not from the order itself, and does not alter the interlocutory or procedural nature of the order that led to dismissal: see Laurentian Plaza Corp. v. Martin (1992), 1992 CanLII 7561 (ON CA), 7 O.R. (3d) 111, [1992] O.J. No. 230 (C.A.).”