they submit that this court should be particularly hesitant to
impose a barrier to the appeal.
 Chevron and Chevron Canada dispute that the Supreme
Court was calling for a “new approach” to enforcement and
recognition actions. They submit that the Rules clearly contemplate that an appellant who is ordinarily resident outside of
Ontario may be ordered to pay security for costs. There is, in
their view, no exception for recognition and enforcement actions
— and certainly such an exception cannot be inferred from the
Supreme Court’s Chevron decision, which dealt with jurisdiction.
 Dealing briefly first with the class action point, the
motion judge, in his costs endorsement, stated the following:
“I do not accept the plaintiffs’ submission that their claim
against Chevron Canada is analogous to a class proceeding and
that s. 31(1) of the Class Proceedings Act therefore applies.”
I agree with him on that point.
 Regardless, even if I were to accept the class action
analogy, this would not prevent security for costs being ordered
where the justice of the case warrants it. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs cite no case law suggesting that a class action that results
in the claim being dismissed against a defendant would insulate
non-resident plaintiffs from having to post security for costs if
they sought to bring an appeal. Although I was unable to find
any analogous cases involving rule 61.06(1), in 2038724 Ontario
Ltd. v. Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corp.,  O.J. No. 1136,
45 C.P.C. (6th) 375 (S.C.J.), Hoy J. (as she then was) ordered the
intended representative plaintiffs in a proposed class action to
pay security for costs pursuant to rule 56.01.
 Turning now to the “new approach” argument, I find
myself largely in agreement with the positions of Chevron and
Chevron Canada. I see no basis in Ontario case law, or the
Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron, to suggest that an otherwise meritorious motion for security for costs should be denied
because the action to which it relates concerns recognition and
enforcement of a foreign judgment.
 Brown v. Raymond Jones Ltd.,  O.J. No. 1897,
51 C.P.C. (6th) 76 (Master), a case cited by Chevron and Chevron
Canada, is apposite on this issue. In that case, the applicants
sought orders giving effect to letters of request from the United
States, and the moving parties sought security for costs. The
moving parties relied on Four Embarcadero Center Venture v.
Mr. Greenjeans Corp.,  O.J. No. 2578, 10 C.P.C. (2d) 105
(Master), which cited [at para. 7] the English Court of Appeal
case Crozat v. Brogden,  2 Q.B. 30 (Eng. C.A.), for the
proposition that “there is no difference between an action on