HASHAM v KANJI, 2020 ABCA 283
4.22: Considerations for security for costs order
14.67: Security for costs
The Respondent to this Application had appealed an interim without prejudice parenting Order. The Appeal was to be heard roughly eight months in the future. The Applicant applied for an Order for Security for Costs of the Appeal.
Justice Feehan stated that the test for ordering Security for Costs is set out in Rule 4.22 itself. Feehan J.A. referred to Parker v Parker, 2019 ABCA 114 for a succinct summary of the test where the Court pf Appeal stated that such an Order is discretionary, but that a failure to pay previous Costs Awards along with a “demonstrated inability to pay costs if an appeal is unsuccessful” will generally suffice to grant a Security for Costs Order.
Feehan J.A. noted that the prospects for success on Appeal should also inform the Court’s exercise of discretion.
Justice Feehan observed that, in this case, much of the Appeal had become moot since the original Order. His Lordship opined that there was very little chance of success on Appeal, noted that the Respondent had no assets in Alberta, and noted that the Respondent had no employment income. As such, Justice Feehan granted the Order for Security for Costs; however, in a more proportionate amount than sought by the Applicant.View CanLII Details