A security for costs motion under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure asks the court to order a plaintiff to post money or other security before a lawsuit continues, protecting the defendant’s ability to actually collect a future costs award. It applies only where specific enumerated circumstances exist, such as the plaintiff living outside Ontario or being a corporation without sufficient assets here. The defendant must first show good reason to believe one of those circumstances applies, after which the plaintiff can avoid the order by showing they have sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.
- Security for costs requires a plaintiff to post money or assets before the case can continue, to protect a future cost award.
- The motion only succeeds where a specific enumerated circumstance under Rule 56.01 applies — it isn’t a general tactic.
- A plaintiff living outside Ontario, or an undercapitalized corporate plaintiff, are common triggers.
- The initial burden on the moving defendant is relatively modest — showing good reason to believe a ground applies.
- A plaintiff can rebut the motion by showing sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction.
- Courts have cautioned against this rule being "weaponized" purely as a litigation tactic rather than a genuine concern.
What a Security for Costs Motion Does
A security for costs motion, brought under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, asks the court to order a plaintiff (or, on appeal, an appellant) to post money or other security before the case continues. The purpose is to protect a defendant’s ability to actually collect on a future costs award, in situations where there is a genuine risk the plaintiff won’t be able or willing to pay if they ultimately lose.
The Grounds That Trigger It
This motion is not available simply because a defendant doubts the merits of the claim. It requires fitting one of the specific circumstances set out in Rule 56.01 — commonly, that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Ontario, that the plaintiff has failed to pay costs ordered in earlier proceedings, or that a corporate plaintiff lacks sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a cost award.
A defendant sued by a corporation with no apparent assets or operations in Ontario, and whose only connection to the province is the dispute itself, has a stronger basis for this motion than a defendant simply skeptical about a well-resourced, Ontario-based plaintiff’s case.
The Two-Step Test
The moving defendant carries an initial onus to show good reason to believe one of the enumerated circumstances applies — courts have described this threshold as relatively modest, and the motion is not meant to involve the kind of deep merits analysis used on a summary judgment motion. If that threshold is met, the burden shifts.
How a Plaintiff Can Rebut the Motion
Once the defendant meets the initial threshold, the plaintiff can still avoid a security for costs order by showing they have sufficient assets in Ontario, or in a reciprocating jurisdiction, to satisfy a future costs award. Evidence matters heavily on both sides of this motion — bare assertions, without supporting financial evidence, can fail regardless of which party is making them.
A security for costs motion brought very late in the proceeding, without a clear explanation for the delay, invites scrutiny — courts have noted that unexplained delay in bringing this motion calls out for an explanation of its own.
Security for Costs on an Appeal
A related but separate rule governs security for costs where a case is on appeal rather than still at the trial level, and it can draw on similar grounds to those available under Rule 56.01. See our guide on civil appeals to the Superior Court in Ontario for the broader appeal process this can arise within.
Strategic Considerations
Because a successful motion can effectively pause a case until security is posted, this tool carries real strategic weight — but courts have specifically cautioned against Rule 56 being used as a tactical weapon rather than addressing a genuine collectability concern. Both bringing and defending this motion benefit from a clear, evidence-based approach rather than a reflexive one.
If you are a plaintiff concerned about this motion, gather evidence of your Ontario assets or connections early — being prepared to rebut the motion quickly can prevent real delay to your case.
Facing a security for costs motion, or considering bringing one, in Toronto or the GTA? Call 416-274-2222 for a free, confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
A plaintiff who fails to comply with a security for costs order generally risks having their claim stayed or dismissed, since the whole point of the order is to protect the defendant before the litigation proceeds further.
No. The motion depends on specific enumerated grounds under Rule 56.01 — such as the plaintiff residing outside Ontario, or being an inadequately capitalized corporation — not simply a prediction about who will win the case.
Not automatically. It can be a ground the defendant relies on, but the plaintiff can still defeat the motion by showing they have sufficient assets in Ontario or in a reciprocating jurisdiction to satisfy a future cost award.
Yes. A separate rule governs security for costs on appeals, and it can incorporate similar grounds to those available at the trial level.
Courts have specifically cautioned against this rule being used tactically rather than for a genuine concern about collectability, and a motion made without real evidentiary support, or brought with unexplained delay, can fail.
The defendant needs evidence supporting the specific ground relied on — for example, evidence of the plaintiff’s residence outside Ontario, or of a corporate plaintiff’s limited assets. A bare assertion without supporting evidence is unlikely to succeed.