Key Points from the Decision
- Motion to Set Aside Costs Order: Ijeoma Chijindu moved to set aside the order from April 25, 2024, which required appellants to post security for costs amounting to $35,605.12.
- Absence at Hearing: Ms. Chijindu claimed inability to attend the hearing, but the motion judge noted no evidence to justify her requested adjournment. Christian Chijindu represented her interests during the hearing, so she was not deprived of the opportunity to make submissions.
- Security for Costs: The motion judge's order was based on two criteria from the Rules of Civil Procedure (r. 61.06(1)(a) and (c)):
- 61.06(1)(a): Concern over Ms. Chijindu’s ability to pay costs if the appeal failed.
- 61.06(1)(c): Found “other good reason” to require security for costs, notably the appellants’ history of not paying debts and low prospect of success in the appeal.
- Appeal Prospects: The motion judge assessed the appeal as having a very low chance of success, supporting the decision for security for costs.
- Cost Orders: The motion is dismissed with all-inclusive costs of $6,000 awarded to Ms. Rathod and $4,000 to Bluekat Capital Corp., to be paid by the appellants.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge’s decision, requiring the appellants to post security for costs and awarding additional costs against them, citing the appellants’ financial unreliability and low likelihood of a successful appeal.
