Betser-Zilevitch v. Petrochina Canada Ltd., 2021 FCA 76
Justice Laskin - 2021-04-15
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The respondent in this appeal moves in writing for security for costs both of the appeal and of the action below in which it successfully defended the appellant’s claim for patent infringement. The motion is brought in reliance on rule 416(1)(f) of the Federal Courts Rules. Read together with rule 415, it authorizes the Court to order an appellant to give security for the respondent’s costs where “the [respondent] has an order against the [appellant] for costs in the same or another proceeding that remain unpaid in whole or in part.” ... It does not appear that this Court or the Federal Court has ever considered the question whether an order can be made under rule 416(1)(f) before the costs said to be unpaid have been assessed. However, case law in other jurisdictions, including jurisdictions whose security for costs rules include an equivalent to rule 416(1)(f), supports the appellant’s position.
Decision relates to:
- A-57-21 - MAOZ BETSER-ZILEVITCH v. PETROCHINA CANADA LTD which is an appeal from 2021 FC 85 in T-1158-18