Imperial Oil Limited (“Imperial”) applied for Security for Costs against 1199096 Alberta Inc. (“1199”) pursuant to Rules 4.22 and 14.67, submitting that 1199 was both unlikely and unable to pay a Costs Award and that 1199’s Appeal of a dismissal finding in the Court below was of little merit.

Citing prior Court of Appeal jurisprudence, Antonio J.A. noted that the ordering of security for costs is discretionary and aims to balance the reasonable expectations of the parties with their rights in order to arrive at a just and reasonable outcome. The onus is on the applicant to establish the factors set out in Rule 4.22. Concerns regarding a party’s ability to pay costs coupled with modest prospects of an appeal’s success have been sufficient to justify granting an application for security for costs, as Imperial argued.

The Court found that Imperial demonstrated 1199's inability to pay the costs award, as 1199 failed to provide financial information or explain the unpaid costs from 2023. The Court noted that 1199's Appeal largely challenged findings of fact and exercises of discretion, which are subject to deferential standards of review. On these facts, the Court concluded that it was just and reasonable to grant Imperial’s Application for Security for Costs.