The Court granted the Respondents’ Application for Security for Costs, and dismissed a cross-Application by the Appellant seeking various forms of relief including: seeking to disqualify counsel from acting for the Respondents, to set aside or vary previous Orders of the Court, and a stay of the Security for Costs Application.

The Appellant characterized her Application as being for advice and direction. The Court confirmed that while the Appellant could seek advice and direction related to the Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.56 and Rule 14.55 (by which a Judge or the Case Management Officer could  grant procedural or other Orders to ensure an Appeal is managed properly), ultimately the cross-Application was not the appropriate forum for the Appellant to seek the requested relief.

The Court confirmed that pursuant to Rules 14.37 and 14.38, Applications brought before a single Judge in the context of an Appeal must be for the purpose of addressing matters incidental to the Appeal, provided such matters were not required to be heard by a panel of the Court of Appeal. The Court determined the Appellant’s Application was not incidental to the Appeal and, in regard to seeking to set aside or vary previous Court Orders, the Application was more appropriate for a panel, not a single Appeal Judge.

The Court suggested that the Appellant could pursue an Application to disqualify the Respondents’ counsel at a later date as long as the parties filed their materials, as contemplated in Rules 14.40 and 14.41, by a date directed by the Court.

Regarding the Respondents’ Security for Costs Application pursuant to Rule 14.67(1), the Court ordered that the Appellant provide Security for Costs. The Court considered the factors listed in Rule 4.22 and determined that it was unlikely that the Respondents would be able to recover their Costs of the Appeal from the Appellant if the Appeal was dismissed; there was no evidence that the Appellant’s ability to continue the Appeal would be unduly prejudiced by an Order for Security for Costs; and it was appropriate to require Security for Costs to be posed by the Appellant.