In Milina v. Bartsch (1985) 5 C.P.C. (2d) 124 (B.C.C.A.) Seaton J.A. stated that s. 24(1) is a discretionary order which will rest upon a number of factors. In that case the issue for consideration was upon whom the onus lies, i.e., is security only ordered where it is shown that security should be ordered, or is security ordered unless it is shown that security should not be ordered? Seaton J.A. concluded that “in the absence of any material” security should be ordered. By this I understand him to mean that security should be ordered unless reason is shown that it should not be.
"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.