What is the test for disclosure in a motion for security for costs against Canasia?

The plaintiff argues that there is good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s conclusion that Canasia was not impecunious or, at a minimum, that there are conflicting decisions on this issue. In support of its position the plaintiff referred to paragraph 32 of the motion judge’s decision where he states as follows: As to the extent of the disclosure required by plaintiffs, as Quinn J. stated in Morton v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 CanLII 6052 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 948 at para. 32: In motions of this nature, the financial evidence of plaintiffs must be set out with robust particularity. There should be no unanswered material questions, as is the case here. It is worth remembering that the financial status of the plaintiffs is known only to them. As I mentioned earlier, they bear the burden of proving the effect upon them of an order for security for costs.