26 There too the principle has developed that an order for security for costs should not ultimately deny the plaintiffs their day in court unless it is plain that the plaintiffs’ action has no prospect of success. As noted in Falso v. De Stefanis,  B.C.J. No. 337 (S.C.): Simply assessing a claim as low in merit and finding a plaintiff impecunious will normally not be sufficient to attract an order for security for costs.
27 In England, where the applicable rule is very similar in its structure to that of Ontario, the courts have indicated that it is not appropriate to get into the merits of the case on an application for security for costs unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is a high degree of probability of success or failure. See Porzelack KG v. Porzelack (UK) Ltd.,  1 All E.R. 1074 (Ch.Div.).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.