The Defendant town of Lamont appealed a Master’s Decision which dismissed their Application for Security for Costs against the Plaintiffs.

Lee J. reviewed the factors that the Court considers when determining an Application pursuant to Rule 4.22, including the ability of the Defendant to enforce a Costs award; the ability of the Plaintiff to pay a Costs award; the merits of the Action; any undue prejudice to the Plaintiff; and any other matters that the Court considers appropriate.

In dismissing the Security for Costs Application, the Master had concluded that the Plaintiff possessed an asset in Alberta which exceeded the Costs sought by the Defendant. Lee J. referred to Rule 6.14(3), which provides that the Appeal from a Master’s Judgment or Order is an Appeal on the record of the proceedings before the Master, and may also be based on additional evidence, if the evidence is relevant and material. Lee J. concluded, on the basis of the evidence before the Court, that the Plaintiffs had no assets in Alberta. Lee J. considered the remaining criteria under Rule 4.22, and determined that Security for Costs in an amount sufficient to complete Questioning was appropriate in the circumstances. Lee J. set aside the Master’s Decision and granted the Defendant’s Appeal.