Coombs v. Canada

Coombs v. Canada

The appeal was dismissed because the Prothonotary correctly categorized unpaid cost orders as engaging Rule 416(1)(f), the appellant failed to discharge the heavy onus to prove impecuniosity with robust particularity under Rule 417 and relevant authority, and the Prothonotary acted within his discretion in ordering $10,000 security up to examinations for discovery; there was no legal error or misapprehension of material facts warranting intervention.

Citation
2008 FC 894
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Harold Coombs; Respondent / Defendant: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Prothonotary's Order for Security for Costs / Decision on Appeal (security for Costs)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Impecuniosity, Prothonotary Discretion, Federal Court Rules Rule 416, Federal Court Rules Rule 417
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Federal Court Practice Security for Costs Impecuniosity Prothonotary Discretion Federal Court Rules Rule 416 Federal Court Rules Rule 417

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harold Coombs

Appellant / Plaintiff

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Prothonotary's Order for Security for Costs / Decision on Appeal (security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prothonotary erred in ordering security for costs under Rule 416(1)(f)
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff established impecuniosity under Rule 417
  3. 3 Whether the Prothonotary misapplied precedent or misapprehended the facts

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Prothonotary correctly categorized unpaid cost orders as engaging Rule 416(1)(f), the appellant failed to discharge the heavy onus to prove impecuniosity with robust particularity under Rule 417 and relevant authority, and the Prothonotary acted within his discretion in ordering $10,000 security up to examinations for discovery; there was no legal error or misapprehension of material facts warranting intervention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal of the Prothonotary’s order for security for costs dated July 4, 2008 is dismissed
  • Costs are ordered in favour of the defendant in the amount of $600.00 payable forthwith