Innotech Pty. Ltd. v. Phoenix Rotary Spike Harrow Ltd.
T-1455-93
Gibson J.
18/4/94
5 pp.
Application for order security for costs be posted by plaintiff pursuant to Federal Court R. 446(1)(a)-Defendants proposing motion disposed without personal appearance pursuant to R. 324-Plaintiff arguing posting security for costs on "instalment basis" rather than expected costs of entire proceeding to completion of trial "logical and practical way of proceeding"-Instalment-type security ordinary practice in Ontario Courts-Defendants submitted posting of security for costs on instalment basis unfair to defendants because requiring to undertake additional expense in making series of application to require posting of security by instalment-R. 446(1) not expressly contemplating posting of security by instalments-While posting of security for costs on instalment basis meeting interests of plaintiff, working to inconvenience of defendants and Federal Court-Increase in number of interlocutory motions required in proceeding, time-consuming and costly-Instalment-type security for costs orders should be made cautiously and only in clear cases of need-No clear case of need herein-Security for costs order allowed-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 324, 446(1)(a).