The Plaintiff applied for Security for Costs against a Defendant individual. Yamauchi J. first determined that the wording of Rule 4.22, which speaks of “a party” rather than “a Plaintiff”, showed the Legislature’s intent to make some Defendants give security. Yamauchi J. also noted that the Plaintiff bore the onus of establishing its case under Rule 4.22. If the Plaintiff met that onus, the onus would shift to the Defendant, since the Defendant was the only person who knew whether there was any reason why the Court should not order him to post Security for Costs. Yamauchi J. then considered the relevant Rule 4.22 factors, which, in this case, included ‘delay’ under Rule 4.22(e). Before making a decision, Yamauchi J. noted that an Order for Security for Costs is not a final Order. Rule 4.23(4) permits the Court to increase or decrease the security required and to vary the nature of the security. In the circumstances, Yamauchi J. granted the Plaintiff’s Application by permitting Certificates of Lis Pendens to be registered against Alberta properties in which the Defendant held an interest.