The Court of Appeal set aside a single judge's order requiring the appellant to provide $100,000 security for costs, holding that the respondent's filing of a cross-appeal after the security order constituted a material change of circumstances warranting re-exercise of the discretion. On re-exercise, the Court found no special circumstances under UCPR r 51.50(1): the disparity between the appellant's limited role at trial and her broader appeal was readily explicable, a ground of appeal in which she had no financial interest was unlikely to require expansive consideration, and the Court declined to treat allegedly poor prospects combined with impecuniosity as special circumstances where the full trial record was not before it. The Court was also satisfied that any significant security order would likely stultify the appeal.
The full text is available to signed-in members.