POOLE v CITY WIDE TOWING AND RECOVERY SERVICE LTD, 2020 ABCA 102
4.22: Considerations for security for costs order
14.67: Security for costs
This was an Application by the Plaintiff for a stay pending the Appeal of an Order, and a Cross-Application by the Defendant for Security for Costs. Justice Feehan explained that the applicable Rules for Security for Costs were Rule 4.22 and 14.67. Feehan J. A. explained that an Applicant bears the burden of establishing that on a balance of probabilities, granting an Order for Security for Costs would be just and equitable, and that Rule 14.67 provides that where a party does not provide Security when ordered, that an Appeal is deemed to be abandoned.
In deciding whether to make such an Order, the Court must take into consideration the elements contained within Rule 4.22. Justice Feehan explored the Rule 4.22 factors in relation to the facts of the case. The Plaintiff’s dire financial situation and other unpaid Costs Orders weighed in favour of granting a Security for Costs Order. The merits of the Appeal and potential prejudice against the Plaintiff being able to pursue the Appeal if an Order was granted weighed against granting the Order. Justice Feehan determined that on a balance it would not be just and reasonable to grant an Order for Security for Costs and dismissed the Application, and dismissed the Defendant’s Application.
The Plaintiff’s stay Application was granted in respect of only part of the Order that was being appealed.View CanLII Details