Support for the appellant’s submission may be found in the frequently cited passage from the judgment of Seaton J.A. in Milina v. Bartsch et al (1985), 5 C.P.C. (2d) 124 at 125: The most likely reason to grant security, or not grant security, would be the financial position of the appellant. If he could say that security would prevent him from conducting an appeal I would be very slow to order security in the absence of the finding that the appeal was frivolous, or something of that nature. Similarly, if it were shown that the appellant had so many assets that security was quite unnecessary, I might think it inappropriate to order security.
"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.