TURMEL: No security needed for plaintiffs 

JCT: I've heard some people are wondering if the Crown's 
request for security is meant for them. It's not. You'll 
remember in my report on the Crown's Feb 11 letter:

    Canada.. will also seek orders that the plaintiffs with 
    unpaid costs awards provide security for costs prior to 
    proceeding.

JCT: I commented: 
    That's aimed at my brother Ray who owes some court cost 
    judgments unpaid as yet that prevented another of his 
    actions from going forward. 

JCT: So if you do not have an unpaid costs award like my
brother Ray, you are not one of of the plaintiffs with an 
unpaid costs award. And no plaintiff who did nothing more th 
an wait to see what happened to the Lead Plaintiff got hit 
with costs, only the Lead Plainfiff. 

I responded to the Case Management Judge on Feb 15: 
    The Defendant notes some plaintiffs have previous unpaid 
    judgments and ask that security be posted. Considering 
    the no-cash cost of emailling out a copy of the 
    documentation, after the first case is decided, those 
    plaintiffs could then decide if it is worth putting up 
    security. 

JCT: So it only applies to anyone who did a template with me 
in previous cases and went higher to get hit with costs. My 
brother Ray is the only plaintiff I can think of. And Igor 
Mozajko but his case is still on its way to the Supreme 
Court. Can't call his unpaid yet. 

So if you don't have any previous unpaid cost judgments, it 
does not apply to you. It was purely a shot to inconvenience 
my brother.