A recent Ontario Superior Court case, Grotz v. Hilton Garden Inn Toronto, has considered the effectiveness of an “after the event” insurance policy (“ATE”) in the context of a security for costs application. An application was brought by the defendant for security for costs where the plaintiff resides in the State of California and, as a non-resident, he bears the burden of proving the effect on him should an order for security for costs be granted.
The Judge ruled that the Master appropriately scrutinized the quality and sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s assets to determine whether they were genuine and if they provided a reasonable degree of protection in the lawsuit, after also having regard to the potential financial impact on the Plaintiff. The Master clearly considered the specific ATE policy terms of the adverse costs insurance in question and, while it was conditional, it was certain enough to be considered security for costs.
Read the case: