Alberta court sets $5,000 appeal security after larger request threatens access to appeal

Two former employees appealing the dismissal of their human-rights complaints must provide $5,000 as security for appeal costs, after an Alberta judge found that the much larger amount their former employer requested would likely prevent them from pursuing the appeal.

In Julien v. Alberta (Human Rights Tribunal), 2026 ABCA 327, released October 16, 2026, Justice Jo’Anne Strekaf of the Court of Appeal of Alberta ordered the security posted within 30 days. If it is not, the appeal will be deemed abandoned without another court order.

The judge also refused to stay enforcement of earlier costs awards. That refusal rested on the former employer’s undertaking to refrain from further enforcement until the appeal is decided, while leaving its existing registrations in place. The ruling does not decide the appeal’s merits.

Costs dispute follows dismissed complaints

The two applicants had brought complaints against Brazeau Foundation, also known as Brazeau Seniors Foundation, alleging employment discrimination. One also alleged retaliation. After a 21-day hearing, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaints in January 2025.

The Court of King’s Bench subsequently dismissed their application for judicial review. The applicants appealed in April 2026. Several costs awards had been made during the proceedings, including a later King’s Bench award of $18,258.75 against each applicant, plus disbursements, other charges and GST.

Those awards remained unpaid. The applicants sought protection from enforcement while their appeal proceeded. Brazeau, in turn, asked that they provide $29,025 plus GST as security for the costs of the appeal.

Enforcement undertaking makes a stay unnecessary

Justice Strekaf applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal: a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm if a stay is refused, and a balance of convenience favouring the order. The overarching question was whether a stay would be just and equitable.

For this application, Brazeau was prepared to assume, without conceding, that there was a serious question. The judge therefore focused on harm and the balance between the parties.

Brazeau had registered writs to enforce the earlier awards, including against property owned by one applicant. But it undertook not to take further enforcement steps until the appeal was decided.

The judge found that promise sufficient to protect the applicants from irreparable harm. Keeping the registrations also protected Brazeau’s position: if another creditor took enforcement proceedings, Brazeau could share in the proceeds. With both interests addressed, an additional court-ordered stay was unnecessary.

Security must also leave room to pursue an appeal

The security application required a different balance. Under the applicable rules, the court considers matters including the prospects of enforcing a future award, ability to pay, the merits of the proceeding and whether security would unduly hinder the case from continuing.

Justice Strekaf explained that unpaid trial costs combined with an inability to pay generally support requiring security. At the same time, lack of money alone should not prevent a party from pursuing a meritorious appeal.

Brazeau argued that enhanced security was warranted because duplicative arguments and serious allegations had required extensive responses. It also pointed to the unpaid awards and the risk that further costs would not be recoverable.

The judge considered those recovery concerns, the considerable costs already incurred, the applicants’ circumstances, their failure to provide focused appeal grounds and their conduct in the proceedings below. She also considered the merits, without resolving the appeal in this decision.

Crucially, she found that the applicants would likely be unable to provide the $29,025 sought and would consequently be deprived of pursuing their appeal. She instead fixed security at $5,000 as a condition of continuing.

The result leaves the underlying appeal open, subject to compliance with that condition. It neither cancels the earlier costs awards nor sets a standard security amount for other litigants: the judge balanced recovery risk and access to an appeal on this record.