What is the test for a motion for security for costs?

This is not the end of the inquiry. “Impecuniousity” is not a word that appears in the rule and it is merely one of the circumstances that might render an order for security unjust. There may be other circumstances in which it would be unjust to erect a barrier to the plaintiff pursuing its action.[3] The general principle is that it would be unjust to make an order having the effect of barring an apparently meritorious claim. There may be cases in which the plaintiff’s claim appears so strong that the risk to the defendant of having an unpaid costs award is virtually non-existent due to the improbability of the defendant recovering costs. Perhaps in those cases, consideration of the merits should persuade the court not to order security even in the absence of a finding of impecuniousity. The extent to which the merits may play a role on a motion for security for costs was thoroughly reviewed by Nordheimer J. in Aviaco v. Boeing.[4] It is abundantly clear that the court ought not to engage in weighing the evidence or making predictions about credibility.