The Application concerned whether the Respondent ought to be required to provide Security for Costs with respect to their Appeal of an Order granting Summary Judgment. The Applicant took the position that the Respondent had failed to pay any amount of the Judgment or Costs awarded, that the Respondent had no assets in Alberta, and that the Appeal had no merit. As such, Security for Costs should be required.

The Respondent took the position that Security for Costs would significantly prejudice their ability to proceed with the Appeal, and that the Appeal had merit on the basis of that the Applicant had failed to provide proper notice of the Application which resulted in the Order being appealed.

The Court considered the discretionary nature of Security for Costs orders under Rule 4.22 and balanced the Parties’ rights and the expectations. When considering the relevant factors and the context of the situation, Justice Friesen noted that the Respondent’s circumstances indicated that Security for Costs would prejudice their ability to continue the Appeal; the Respondent was unemployed, in debt, and without assets. Additionally, the Court noted that while there was little merit to the Appeal, the timing of the Application suggested that it was being brought for the primary purpose of creating a financial barrier for the Respondent from continuing the Appeal.

As such, the Court dismissed the Application for Security for costs. Additionally, the Respondent had sought to admit new evidence in the proceedings during the Application, but Justice Friesen noted that such an application needed to be heard by the panel hearing the Appeal unless otherwise directed.