Second, if the defendant has succeeded at the first stage, the onus then shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that an order for security for costs would be unjust, by either demonstrating that it is impecunious and justice demands that it should be permitted to continue with the action, or by demonstrating that the plaintiff has sufficient assets to respond to a costs order. See Sadat v. Westmore Plaza Inc., [2013] O.J. No. 309, para. 20.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.