EK v RO, 2026 ABCA 293

The Applicant, EK, applied for a stay of a parenting reversal Order pending Appeal, seeking the return of the parties' three children to her primary care until the Appeal was decided. RO opposed the Stay Application and cross-applied for Security for Costs under Rule 4.22.

Relying on Bains v Adam, 2025 ABCA 235, Antonio J.A. outlined that ordering Security for Costs is discretionary. Pursuant to Rule 4.22, the Court must determine if an Order is just and reasonable by taking into consideration: the enforceability of a potential costs award, the respondent's ability to pay, the merits of the proceeding, any prejudice to continuing the action, and any other relevant circumstances.

The Respondent sought Security for Costs arguing the Appellant lacked assets, relied primarily on spousal support, and had a history of failing to comply with Court Orders. Antonio J.A. accepted that the Appellant had limited means and that recovery of a future Costs Award might be difficult.

However, the Court declined to order Security for Costs. While recognizing that the Appeal would be subject to deferential standards of review, the Court emphasized that the Appeal engaged the best interests of the children. In the circumstances, it was "just and equitable" to permit the Appeal to proceed without a financial impediment. Antonio J.A. held that the importance of determining the children's best interests outweighed the Respondent's interest in securing recovery of potential Appeal costs and dismissed the Application for Security for Costs.