Background
Vem Yenovkian sought a panel review of an order by Thorburn J.A. requiring him to post security for costs and staying his appeal until he did so. Yenovkian acted on his own behalf.
The appeal concerned issues involving a release. Yenovkian acknowledged that he lived outside Ontario and had no assets in the province. He relied in part on the fact that judges at earlier stages had declined to order security for costs on that basis.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion. It held that Yenovkian had identified no reviewable error in Thorburn J.A.’s order.
The court also said the appeal was not arguable in light of settled law on the essential terms of releases. In any event, Yenovkian’s residence outside Ontario and lack of Ontario assets were sufficient grounds for security for costs. The earlier refusals to order security did not matter. The court found ample grounds under rr. 61.06(1)(a), (b), and (c).
Key Takeaways
- An appellant living outside Ontario with no Ontario assets may be ordered to post security for costs.
- Prior decisions declining security for costs do not prevent a later order where the rule’s requirements are met.
- Yenovkian had seven days to post the ordered security; otherwise, the respondent could seek dismissal of the appeal without notice.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that security for costs can be justified by an out-of-province appellant’s lack of local assets, independently of the merits of the appeal. It also underscores the limited scope of panel review of a single judge’s procedural order.
The court awarded the respondent $5,000 in all-inclusive costs of the review motion.