The respondent in a family law proceeding brought a motion seeking security for costs by preventing the sale, transfer, or encumbrance of a property registered in the applicant’s name.
The motion relied primarily on the applicant’s failure to pay a prior $750 costs order and concerns that the property might be transferred to a third party.
The court held that while Rule 24(13) of the Family Law Rules permits security for costs where a costs order remains unpaid, the amount outstanding was minimal and insufficient to justify the order.
The motion was also brought at the conclusion of trial, undermining the policy considerations typically underlying security for costs.
The court further noted that the requested order could affect the interests of a non‑party who contributed to the mortgage and expenses of the property.
The motion was dismissed and previous orders restricting dealings with the property were vacated.
