Max Power Security Services Ltd. v. Donley
Max Power Security Services Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Gautam & Associates
Lawyer(s)

Deepak Gautam

Margrett Donley also known as Margrett Donelly
Law Firm / Organization
Pearlman Lindholm Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Michael Scherr

Dale Crump
Law Firm / Organization
Pearlman Lindholm Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Michael Scherr

Bruce Clark
Law Firm / Organization
Pearlman Lindholm Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Michael Scherr

Canadian K9 Detection Security & Investigations Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Group8108 Executive Protection Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Pearlman Lindholm Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Michael Scherr

Canadian K9 Detection Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Pearlman Lindholm Law Corporation
Sukhdev Singh Gill
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Background:
Max Power Security Services Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Margrett Donley (also known as Margrett Donelly), Dale Crump, Bruce Clark, Canadian K9 Detection Security & Investigations Ltd., Group8108 Executive Protection Inc., and Canadian K9 Detection Ltd. The case stemmed from a dispute over unpaid invoices and an allegation that the defendants conspired to avoid paying a judgment.

Legal Issues:
The defendants, led by Bruce Clark, requested that Max Power Security Services Ltd. post security for costs under section 236 of the Business Corporations Act, arguing that the company would be unable to pay costs if the lawsuit failed. The plaintiff opposed, claiming this would stifle their claim and argued the defendants were responsible for their financial difficulties.

Court’s Analysis:
The court applied the Kropp factors, determining that the plaintiff's claim would not be stifled by ordering security for costs, as the plaintiff’s owner had significant assets, including a house worth $1.8 million. The court also found that the defendants had a prima facie case that the plaintiff would be unable to pay the defendants' costs if the lawsuit failed.

Decision:
The court ordered Max Power Security Services Ltd. to post $20,000 as security for costs within 30 days. Additionally, the court awarded costs of the application to the defendants.

Amount Awarded:
The court ordered $20,000 in security for costs and awarded the costs of the application to the defendants.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S230756
Corporate & commercial law
$ 20,000
Defendant