The courts have always drawn a distinction between individual plaintiffs and corporate plaintiffs [citations omitted]. In the case of a natural plaintiff, the court has taken care to specify that the inherent jurisdiction to order security for costs should be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and under very special circumstances [citations omitted]. In Fraser v. Houston, supra, at para. 11, the court said that orders should not be made except in egregious circumstances amounting to an abuse of the court’s jurisdiction. Certainly, the fact that an individual plaintiff resides outside the jurisdiction, has no assets in it, or is impecunious, is normally not sufficient to attract an order [citations omitted].
A rationale for the cautious approach to orders for security for costs against natural persons is to ensure that everyone has access to justice, regardless of their economic circumstances. This was articulated by Justice Goepel in Bronson v. Hewitt, 2007 BCSC 1751 at para. 42:
"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.