RUYGROK v RUYGROK, 2026 ABCA 289

The Applicant applied for an Order that the Respondent post Security for Costs for his upcoming Appeal of a child support Order.

The Court confirmed its discretion to order Security for Costs pursuant to Rule 4.22 if it is just and reasonable to do so. The burden was on the Applicant to show Security for Costs were justified.

The Court granted the Order for Security for Costs. In doing so, Antonio J.A. assessed the factors for consideration outlined in Rule 4.22.

First, the Court concluded that the Applicant would likely be unable to enforce a Costs Award against the Respondent’s assets in Alberta. Although the Respondent possessed assets, Antonio J.A. accepted the Applicant’s submission that the Respondent had “made efforts to render himself judgment-proof” and had been largely successful. The Court also noted the Respondent’s history of refusing to provide timely financial information and failing to pay child support. Appeal Justice Antonio rejected the Respondent’s submission that the Maintenance Enforcement Program could enforce the Judgment under Appeal because the Respondent failed to identify any assets or income against which enforcement steps could be taken.

Second, Antonio J.A. concluded that the Respondent did not have a high likelihood of success on Appeal.

Third, the Respondent had not claimed that Security for Costs would unduly prejudice his ability to continue the Action.

In determining the quantum of security, the Court declined to presume it would order enhanced costs. Antonio J.A. was not prepared to make assumptions about settlement offers potentially affecting the costs of the Appeal. Instead, the Court based the quantum on Column 2 of Schedule C of the Rules, consistent with previous Costs Awards in the Action.