Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Determination of whether Goldman's motion to stay the security for costs order was properly founded

• Standards for solicitor and client costs require reprehensible or outrageous conduct, not merely lack of merit

• Cross-examinations in an unrelated King's Bench proceeding lacked relevance to the security decision

• Anticipated IndigiVision funding that had not materialized was irrelevant to the security requirement

• Procedural abuse from filing the motion less than ten days before the payment deadline

• IndigiVision failed to file its own motion, leaving Goldman without authority to act on its behalf

Background and procedural history

The case of Gobeil v Goldman arose from a dispute involving Andre Norbert Gobeil, Gisele Anne Marie Gobeil (applicants), Aaron Goldman, and IndigiVision Inc. (respondents). A previous decision in this same litigation, Gobeil v Goldman, 2025 MBCA 66, had addressed a motion for security for costs. In that decision, Justice Turner ordered the respondents to pay security for costs in the amount of $5,000, with payment required no later than September 7, 2025. This order was pronounced on July 21, 2025.

Goldman's stay motion

Rather than comply with the security for costs order, Aaron Goldman filed a stay motion on August 28, 2025—less than ten days before the payment deadline and the requested hearing date. In his motion, Goldman sought either to stay the security for costs decision or, alternatively, to have it varied to permit payment over a period of time through an installment plan. Despite the short notice, the Court of Appeal accommodated Goldman's request to have the matter heard prior to the payment deadline. The stay motion was heard on September 5, 2025, and dismissed on that same date. The applicants subsequently sought solicitor and client costs, arguing that Goldman's conduct throughout the litigation had been scandalous and reprehensible, that the motion was frivolous and entirely without merit, was designed to cause harm, and necessitated significant legal costs to respond.

Grounds asserted for the stay motion

Goldman advanced two primary grounds in support of the stay motion. First, he argued that cross-examinations of two applicant witnesses had not yet occurred in relation to a matter pending in the Court of King's Bench. However, the court found these cross-examinations had no relevance whatsoever to the security for costs decision and therefore provided no foundation for the stay motion. Second, Goldman contended that a material change in circumstances had occurred after the security for costs decision was pronounced, specifically that anticipated funding to IndigiVision Inc. that had been expected in July 2025 had not yet materialized. The court noted that in the underlying security for costs decision, such funding to IndigiVision was determined to be irrelevant, and furthermore, IndigiVision itself had not properly filed any motion to stay or vary the security order, leaving Goldman without authority to advance this argument on the company's behalf.

Legal framework for solicitor and client costs

Justice Turner addressed the legal standard governing awards of solicitor and client costs. Such awards are rare and are generally made only where there has been reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct by one of the parties in how the litigation has been pursued or defended. Importantly, lack of merit alone does not justify such an award. However, where a claim is made recklessly without any foundation whatsoever and, in rare circumstances, where a claim is so utterly without hope that it amounts to misconduct or an abuse of process, solicitor and client costs may be awarded.

The court's findings and ruling

The court determined that the stay motion was without foundation, utterly without hope, and constituted an abuse of process for several specific reasons. The late filing—less than ten days before the scheduled hearing—caused prejudice and additional costs to the applicants, who were forced to marshal their reply on short notice. Despite this procedural fault, the Court accommodated Goldman's request for an early hearing. More substantively, neither ground advanced in the motion possessed any legitimate foundation. The alleged cross-examination issue was entirely irrelevant to the security for costs order, and the claimed change in circumstances regarding IndigiVision's funding had already been determined to be immaterial in the original security decision. The applicants were successful in their submission that Goldman should bear the costs of the motion, and Goldman was ordered to pay solicitor and client costs of the stay motion to the applicants forthwith. While the specific quantum of the solicitor and client costs award was not assessed or quantified in this decision, the order for payment was made immediately without further delay or installment options.