Appeals - Security for Costs - Where Appeal is Frivolous and Vexatious
Chinese Publications for Canadian Libraries Ltd. v City of Markham and Markham Public Library (Ont CA, 2017)
Here the Court of Appeal elaborates on the security for costs requirement that an appeal be 'frivolous and vexatious' under R61.01(1)(a):
 To find that an appeal is "frivolous and vexatious" there must be something that supports the conclusion that the appeal is "vexatious" in the sense that it is taken to annoy or embarrass the respondent or has been conducted in a vexatious manner: York University v. Markicevic, 2017 ONCA 651 (CanLII), 2017 ONCA 651 (in chambers), at paras. 19, 32 and 36; Pickard v. London Police Services Board, 2010 ONCA 643 (CanLII), 2010 ONCA 643 (in chambers), at para. 19; and Henderson v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 89 (CanLII), 2016 ONCA 89 (in chambers), at para. 20. Having heard Mr. Cao’s arguments, and considered his notice of appeal and factum, I am satisfied that he has been pursuing the appeal with diligence and in the sincere belief that there was no justification for the termination of the contract. While he may be adopting other methods that are harassing to the City to achieve his overall objective, this conduct alone does not make his appeal vexatious. The City does not meet the test for security for costs under r. 61.06(1)(a).