Alberta Court of Appeal awards ex-wife $6K in security for costs, $3K in costs
The Alberta Court of Appeal has dismissed a former husband’s application to stay the enforcement of an order for him to pay more than $177,700, comprising retroactive child support and expenses, ongoing monthly child support, and costs.
In Ruygrok v Ruygrok, 2026 ABCA 289, the parties married in May 2003, had one child of the marriage, separated in 2005, and divorced in 2007. Litigation ensued. The ex-husband did not attend a streamlined trial.
Last April, after the trial, Justice Jeffrey ordered the ex-husband to pay more than $140,000 in retroactive child support and expenses, over $2,700 monthly in ongoing child support, and more than $35,000 in costs.
Before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, the ex-husband applied to set aside Justice Jeffrey’s judgment on the ground that he had no notice of the trial.
Denying the application, Justice Kachur of the Court of King’s Bench determined that the ex-husband knew about the proceedings and had “every opportunity to attend” the trial.
Appeals and stay application
Before the Alberta Court of Appeal, the ex-husband appealed against the child support order and the denial of his application to set aside that order. The ex-husband then applied to stay the enforcement until the determination of his appeals.
On the other hand, the ex-wife opposed her ex-husband’s stay application and applied for security for costs for the appeal.
Alberta Court of Appeal denies stay
The Alberta Court of Appeal refused the ex-husband’s request to stay the enforcement.
While the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, the appeal court ruled that the ex-husband failed to establish that he needed a stay to prevent irreparable harm, serve the balance of convenience, or secure the child’s best interests.
In seeking to stay the enforcement, the ex-husband asserted that he received insufficient notice – or no notice at all – of the trial. The appeal court said it would be unfair to assess the merits of the ex-husband’s arguments on adequacy of notice, which depended on information not before it.
The appeal court pointed out that the proceedings before Justice Kachur focused on the sufficiency of notice. The appeal court deferred to Justice Kachur’s factual findings and saw no frailty in her conclusion.
Regarding the grounds of appeal assailing Justice Jeffrey’s factual findings, the appeal court found no merit in the allegations, which had not been developed in argument.
As for the allegation that Justice Jeffrey had committed a legal error by failing to advert to a legal test, the appeal court deemed it difficult to assess this argument based on the materials before it.
Regarding the ex-husband’s argument that the Maintenance Enforcement Program would sell his investment property if the court refused a stay, the appeal court held that he failed to show that seizure and sale were imminent. The appeal court added that the investment property loss would be quantifiable and reparable in monetary terms.
According to the appeal court, the ex-husband’s expectation that he would not be able to get back funds from his ex-wife if he succeeded on appeal and again at trial was insufficient to prove that any funds paid to her would be unrecoverable.
Security for costs
The Alberta Court of Appeal granted the ex-wife security for costs fixed at $6,475. The appeal court explained that it would deem the appeal abandoned if the ex-husband failed to pay that amount by Oct. 1.
Application costs
The Alberta Court of Appeal awarded the ex-wife $3,370 for the costs of both applications under Column 2 of Schedule C. The appeal court saw no settlement offer made and found double costs unjustified.
Alberta Court of Appeal’s prior family cases
Here are some other recent family law decisions from the Court of Appeal of Alberta.
In a proposed appeal of a consent property judgment between former spouses, the appeal court issued an Apr. 23 decision denying permission to appeal on the grounds of the ex-wife’s incapacity to understand and accept the terms and/or ineffective assistance of counsel.
On Apr. 1, the appeal court dismissed a father’s application for permission to appeal a desk duty justice’s refusal to proceed with a hearing of a family matter on the urgent applications list of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest family law news on the main page!
