STONEY v TRUSTEES FOR THE 1985 SAWRIDGE TRUST, 2017 ABCA 437
watson, slatter and bielby jja
4.22: Considerations for security for costs order
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
14.67: Security for costs
The Appellant, Maurice Stoney and his siblings had engaged in litigation for 17 years in an attempt to establish his right to be a member of the Sawridge First Nation which would entitle him to certain funds held in a trust. Mr. Stoney applied to the Case Management Justice to intervene in an Action, which Application was dismissed. Mr. Stoney was also declared to be a vexatious litigant and Costs were ordered against him. Mr. Stoney appealed and the Respondents, the Sawridge First Nation and other parties, applied for Security for Costs in the Appeal.
The Court noted that Rule 4.22 applies to Appeals through Rule 14.67. Further, Rule 4.22(d) requires that the Court considers whether a Security for Costs Order “would unduly prejudice the respondent’s ability to continue the action”. The Appellant was on a fixed income, had few assets, and had failed to pay previous costs awards. Additionally, the Court stated that the merits of the Appeal were questionable. When determining whether an Order for Security for Costs would unduly prejudice the Appellant’s ability to continue the Action, the Court noted that concerns about depriving the Appellant of his day in court were diminished because he had engaged in many previous unsuccessful attempts to succeed in his Claim, and “given that his application was dismissed based on issue estoppel his right to further pursue the same arguments on appeal is severely limited”. The Court granted the Order for Security for Costs in the amount of $10,000.View CanLII Details