Thanks for sending the canlii article.

While this would be an awful double standard if it was as it's being alleged in the title, reading the whole reasoning behind the ruling doesn't make it seem like it's being purported.

There's multiple pieces in the ruling Paragraphs 28, 39, 42 that could be reasonable for fear of safety beyond just financial safety. Additionally, the defendant in this ruling is not the most reliable and commits several errors in just generally being in court.

Also… this article is about a relationship that broke up, the defendant sent threatening & disparaging emails and additionally threatened the plaintiff in multiple ways, think libellous remarks.

I don't think this could be used to have criminal charges brought up for suing someone. I could be wrong but I just don't see it in the cards on this one.