The Applicants, the Deadmans, applied for a Stay of a Decision by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench which found that the Alberta Court had jurisdiction over this Action which had been filed by the Respondents, the Jagers, following a dispute over investments made in Mexico. The Deadmans were residents of Mexico and appealed the Alberta Court Queen’s Bench Decision. The Jagers cross-applied for Security for Costs.

After granting the Deadmans’ Application for a Stay, the Court considered the Jagers’ Application for Security for Costs. Khullar J.A. confirmed the applicable Rules. Rule 14.67 allows a single Appeal Judge to order Security for Costs and deems an Appeal abandoned where a party does not post Security for Costs when ordered. Rule 4.22 lists the considerations for Security for Costs including a Respondent’s ability to pay a Costs award and the enforceability of a Costs award in Alberta.

The Court noted that it is unusual for a Plaintiff to apply for Security for Costs though it is permitted. Where the Plaintiff has applied for Security for Costs, the Plaintiff bears the onus of showing that the requirements have been met. Khullar J.A. ruled that the requirements had not been met in this case. The Jagers did not show that the Deadmans were unlikely to pay a future Costs award. The evidence was that the Deadmans had already paid the Costs awarded by the lower Court and were now appealing that ruling. Moreover, the Court rejected the Jagers’ argument that the Deadmans had no assets in Alberta. It was the Jagers who chose Alberta as the jurisdiction for this Action. If they were concerned about the enforceability of a Costs order, they could have chosen another jurisdiction.

The Deadmans’ Application for a Stay was granted, and the Jagers’ Application for Security for Costs was dismissed.