should be treated differently than any other litigant in our
courts. The just order in this case is one for security for costs.
 Having concluded that security for costs is warranted,
I now turn to determining the appropriate quantum. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs submit that the quantum for both Chevron and
Chevron Canada should not exceed $50,000 in the aggregate.
They contend that the arguments to be advanced in the main
appeal have already been canvassed several times, and thus little additional preparation will be necessary. Further, the positions of Chevron Canada and Chevron are identical, with both
seeking the same remedy (the removal of Chevron Canada as
 Chevron and Chevron Canada submit that the quantum
they seek is reasonable. The bulk of it is made up of the costs
already awarded during this action, which remains unpaid. The
quantum sought for security for costs falls within the range
of costs awards that have been made recently by this court for
appeals of similar length.
 In my view, while it may be true that the arguments to be
advanced on this appeal have already been canvassed several
times, it must be noted that the large majority of the security
sought relates to the awards of costs already made. Having said
that, I am of the view that the amounts claimed for security for
the costs of the appeal are high having regard to the history of
this matter. They should be reduced to take into account the
reasonable Ecuadorian plaintiffs’ argument that the issues
advanced will be much the same as have been advanced before.
 The total amount sought might seem like a large quan-
tum of security. However, it pales in comparison to the over
$9.5 billion that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs are seeking to enforce.
In awarding costs for the motion, the motion judge noted the fol-
lowing in relation to Chevron (and made similar comments in
regards to Chevron Canada):
The plaintiffs attempt to enforce an over $9 billion judgment, which is
known to be and has been found to be fraudulent. As Judge Kaplan of the
SDNY found, the plaintiffs have been supported by millions of dollars from a
sophisticated financing network involving “numerous investors”, including
litigation financers and law firms. The Plaintiffs have enjoyed a large team
of experienced counsel internationally. They are similarly represented by a
large team of experienced counsel in Canada. In the circumstances, Chevron
Corp.’s efforts in Canada, including on the motions for summary judgment
motions (and the motion to strike) are proportionate, reasonable and to have