Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Security for costs ordered as a precondition to hearing a judicial recusal motion alleging apprehension of bias

• Rule 56.01 applied; security grounded on unpaid prior costs totaling $12,506.29 and conceded insufficiency of Ontario assets

• Court declined to prejudge the recusal motion as frivolous given the gravity of bias allegations and counsel’s professional obligations

• Payment mechanics set: deposit into counsel’s trust by 10:00 a.m. on August 6, 2025, or the recusal motion is dismissed with prejudice

• Litigation history (trial decision, failed appeal, denied stay) supported enforcing unpaid costs while preserving access to a merits hearing on bias

Facts and procedural posture
Glenn Bogue moved for security for costs in response to an upcoming motion by Andrew Clifford Miracle seeking the judge’s recusal (as judge and case manager) on apprehension-of-bias grounds. The recusal motion was scheduled for August 6, 2025, following a July 24, 2025 case conference that set filing deadlines; the security motion was determined in writing on August 5, 2025. Bogue’s stated grounds were that Miracle lacked sufficient assets in Ontario and that the recusal motion was frivolous and vexatious; the record also disclosed unpaid costs orders against Miracle totaling $12,506.29.

Issues and legal framework
The court considered whether to order security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56.01 permits security where, among other things, (a) there are unpaid costs orders, or (b) there is good reason to believe the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious and the party lacks sufficient Ontario assets. Miracle conceded he had insufficient assets to pay Bogue’s costs.

Analysis and reasoning
On the allegation that the recusal motion was frivolous or vexatious, the judge emphasized that bias claims are serious, engage the integrity of the administration of justice, and should not be pre-empted at the security stage. The court also proceeded on the assumption that Miracle’s counsel, as an officer of the court, would not advance a baseless motion. Conversely, the existence of unpaid costs orders supported security. The court noted Miracle remained bound to pay those costs (absent Supreme Court intervention), that his stay attempt had been refused on May 9, 2025, and that enforcing the unpaid costs ground avoided prejudging the merits of the bias motion while ensuring cost protection.

Outcome
The court ordered Miracle to post $12,506.29 as security for costs “forthwith,” satisfied by payment into his counsel Ian Collins’s trust account by 10:00 a.m. on August 6, 2025, to remain pending further order. If counsel could not certify the deposit, the recusal motion would be deemed dismissed with prejudice.