What is the current state of the law on security for costs?

Goepel J. reviewed the authorities in respect of security for costs in Bronson v. Hewitt, 2007 BCSC 1751 at paras. 21 - 34. In his discussion of the authorities, Goepel J. laid out the following principles at paras. 41 - 49: • individual and corporate plaintiffs have always been treated differently; • an order for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff prevents its principals from hiding behind the corporate veil, operating as a disincentive for “litigious abuses”; • with individuals, on the other hand, the fundamental concern is access to the courts. Individuals have always been granted access to the courts regardless of their ability to pay a successful defendant's costs. Only in egregious circumstances have individuals been ordered to post security for costs; • an applicant no longer has the power to demand security for costs simply because the plaintiff resides outside of the jurisdiction and does not possess assets within it; • the onus is on the applicant to establish that it will be unable to recover its costs; • the power to order security for costs against individuals should be exercised cautiously, sparingly and only under very special circumstances; and • once it has been determined that it is appropriate to order security for costs, the Kropp principles should be considered.