Harding v. Sokil

Harding v. Sokil

The court exercised its discretion to require security for costs because an unpaid costs order existed, the appellant had indicated she would not pay that order, she had not prosecuted the appeal with diligence, and the appeal's merits were weak; accordingly the court ordered payment of prior costs and $19,000 security into court and awarded costs of $3,000 on the motion, with failure to comply to result in dismissal of the appeal on motion.

Citation
2020 ONCA 422
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim; Moving Party: Alexander J. Harding; Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim; Responding Party: Barbara Lynn Sokil; Defendant to Counterclaim: Alexander James Harding; Defendant to Counterclaim: Estate of Irene Francis Harding; Defendant to Counterclaim: Sharron Lynn-Duns
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Counterclaim / Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Require Security for Costs; Decision on Motion
Outcome
Motion granted in part: costs to moving party awarded; prior costs and security for costs ordered; appeal subject to dismissal if orders not complied with.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Stay Pending Appeal, Costs Orders, Security for Costs, Dismissal for Non Compliance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Security for Costs Property/mortgage Law Summary Judgment Stay Pending Appeal Costs Orders +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander J. Harding

Plaintiff; Defendant by Counterclaim; Moving Party

Barbara Lynn Sokil

Defendant; Plaintiff by Counterclaim; Responding Party

Alexander James Harding

Defendant to Counterclaim

Estate of Irene Francis Harding

Defendant to Counterclaim

Sharron Lynn-Duns

Defendant to Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Counterclaim / Motion to Dismiss Appeal or Require Security for Costs; Decision on Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for failure to pay a costs order
  2. 2 Whether the court should require security for costs as a condition of continuing the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the motion hearing should be adjourned

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to require security for costs because an unpaid costs order existed, the appellant had indicated she would not pay that order, she had not prosecuted the appeal with diligence, and the appeal's merits were weak; accordingly the court ordered payment of prior costs and $19,000 security into court and awarded costs of $3,000 on the motion, with failure to comply to result in dismissal of the appeal on motion.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part: costs to moving party awarded; prior costs and security for costs ordered; appeal subject to dismissal if orders not complied with.

Orders

  • Awarded costs to Mr. Harding of $3,000, inclusive, to be paid by Ms. Sokil within 30 days of release of reasons.
  • Ms. Sokil ordered to pay the prior Costs Order of $2,000 to Mr. Harding's counsel within 30 days of release of reasons.