In the case of 2496300 Ontario Inc. v. Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan Inc. dated September 13, 2023, the defendant, Farm Mutual Reinsurance Plan Inc. (“FMRP”), had requested the plaintiff, 2496300 Ontario Inc. (“249”), to provide security for costs in the amount of $214,122.60. FMRP had relied on Rule 56.01(1)(d) and had argued that 249, being a corporation, lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to cover potential costs, justifying the request for security. 249 had resisted this motion, acknowledging FMRP's initial case but contesting the necessity of providing security. The background of the case had revealed a history of janitorial service contracts between FMRP and companies formed by Kenneth Winer and Patricia Newdorf, the principals of 249. In 2015, 249 had been incorporated, and a contract had been signed in 2016 for property management services. FMRP had terminated this contract in 2017, which had led to 249 initiating legal action in 2018, seeking $550,000 in damages. The ruling had stated that 249 had not demonstrated a "good chance of success" in the case, particularly in overturning the 2016 contract. Consequently, security for prospective costs of $50,000 had been ordered, with specific payment deadlines for future events: $5,000 before mediation, $5,000 before the pretrial conference, and the remaining $40,000 90 days before the trial. Regarding motion costs, FMRP had been awarded $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, reflecting its partial success in obtaining the requested security.