(b) an order for security for costs could be made against the appellant
under rule 56.01; or
(c) for other good reason, security for costs should be ordered,
a judge of the appellate court, on motion by the respondent, may make such
order for security for costs of the proceeding and of the appeal as is just.
(1.1) If an order is made under subrule (1), rules 56.04, 56.05, 56.07 and
56.08 apply, with necessary modifications.
(2) If an appellant fails to comply with an order under subrule (1), a judge
of the appellate court on motion may dismiss the appeal.
 Before turning to the analysis of whether I should grant
the order to dismiss the appeal, I note that there is no dispute
that the husband failed to post the security required by Blair
J.A.’s order, namely, a letter of credit in the amount of $936,000.
However, before me, the husband submitted that he was unable
to obtain such a letter of credit because of a previous order
of Gillese J.A. That order, which was continued in Blair J.A.’s
order, barred him from encumbering or disposing of his assets.
Since, according to the husband, the only realistic way of obtaining the required letter of credit would be to encumber or dispose
of his interest in his holding company, Renegade, one order prevented him from complying with the other. As will become clear
below, I am able to rule on this motion without accepting or
rejecting the husband’s explanation.
 I turn now to the principles governing a motion to dismiss
under rule 61.06(2). While there is ample authority dealing
with when it is appropriate to order security for costs, there is
no Ontario case that discusses, in any depth, the factors to
be considered on a motion to dismiss an appeal for failure to
post security for costs. Counsel for the wife recognized that
the dismissal of the appeal under rule 61.06(2) was discretion-
ary and relied on the decision of the Nova Scotia Court of
Appeal in Dataville Farms Ltd. v. Colchester (County), 
N.S.J. No. 543, 2014 NSCA 95, 351 N.S.R. (2d) 65. On my read-
ing of Dataville Farms, Bourgeois J.A. stated the following
— The decision is discretionary: “It should not be presumed
that an order for dismissal will automatically flow from
an appellant’s failure to abide by an order to give security”
— Nevertheless, careful attention and deference must be
accorded to the initial decision to award security for costs:
“It is not the function of the Court faced with a subsequent