Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendant sought $50,000 in security for costs based on unpaid cost awards from previous, related proceedings.

• Plaintiff had not paid $4,500 in prior costs but had paid others within the current litigation.

• The motion was brought over five years into the case, raising serious concerns about delay.

• Court found the request disproportionate and lacking justification at this late stage.

• Defendant also sought a prohibition order to bar the plaintiff from further motions or appeals without leave.

• Associate judge held he lacked jurisdiction to restrict appeal rights and declined to impose limits on litigation steps.

Background and procedural history

The plaintiff, Qun Zheng, commenced an action in 2018 against Universal Protection Service of Canada Corporation (operating as Allied Universal Security Services of Canada) and several named individuals. The underlying claim was not the subject of the present ruling. Instead, the defendants brought a motion in 2025 for security for costs and an order prohibiting Mr. Zheng from taking further steps or launching new appeals without the court’s permission.

The defendants grounded their request for $50,000 in security on two unpaid costs orders from related proceedings: $3,000 from a Divisional Court decision and $1,500 from a Court of Appeal decision, both linked to Mr. Zheng’s earlier unsuccessful judicial review efforts. The defendants also argued the action was frivolous and vexatious and that Mr. Zheng lacked assets in Ontario to cover potential costs.

Security for costs motion

The associate judge noted that security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires the moving party to first meet the threshold for one or more listed criteria—here, the existence of unpaid costs orders and the claim being frivolous and vexatious. While Mr. Zheng admitted the costs remained unpaid, he argued this was due to his pending appeal-related activity, including a rejected request for reconsideration at the Supreme Court of Canada.

Although Mr. Zheng’s argument that the appeal process suspends payment obligations lacked legal support, the court found that $4,500 in unpaid costs from separate proceedings was not a sufficient basis to demand $50,000 in security. The court emphasized that Mr. Zheng had paid other costs awards within the ongoing litigation and that the disproportionate nature of the demand made it unjust.

Further, the judge was not satisfied that the claim could be classified as frivolous and vexatious, particularly in light of Universal’s significant delay in bringing the motion. With over five years having passed since the statement of defence and only months remaining before a scheduled trial, the motion was deemed too late. Universal failed to provide a compelling explanation for the delay, and the court found no justification to now burden the plaintiff with such a cost barrier.

Request for litigation restrictions

Universal also asked the court to prohibit Mr. Zheng from initiating further steps in the action or launching any new appeals without first obtaining leave of the court. The judge clarified that under Rule 37.16, restrictions may only be placed on motions—not general litigation steps or statutory appeal rights.

Since Mr. Zheng had already set the matter down for trial, Rule 48.04 already limited his ability to bring further motions without leave. There was no evidence to warrant additional restrictions. Moreover, the judge ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to interfere with appeal rights, which are governed by the Courts of Justice Act and not subject to procedural rule-based limitations by associate judges.

Outcome and costs

The motion was dismissed in full. The court deferred a ruling on costs, encouraging the parties to settle. Failing that, the court set a schedule for written costs submissions.

This decision reflects the court’s measured approach to balancing procedural safeguards for defendants with access to justice for self-represented litigants. It also reinforces the importance of timely motions and the limits of judicial authority over statutory rights.