to the credit of the action pending disposition of the appeal, and
the “alternative relief claimed in the form of the posting of a
letter of credit as security for [the husband’s] obligations if the
appeal is unsuccessful”. He repeated that he wished to properly
balance and protect the interests of both parties.
 Significantly, Blair J.A. anticipated the possibility that
the husband might fail to comply with his order. Paragraph 8 of
the formal order reflects his reasons in stating that, “should the
[husband] fail to pay the net proceeds from the sale [of the
matrimonial home] into court or fail to post the letter of credit
provided for above, the automatic stay precluding the enforcement of the trial judge’s orders for the payment of the equalization payment, prejudgment interest and trial costs is lifted”.
 On my reading, it was Blair J.A.’s intention that the sanction for the husband’s failure to provide a letter of credit to provide security for costs would be the lifting of the stay and not the
dismissal of the appeal. Paragraph 4 of his order provides additional support for that view. In para. 4, Blair J.A. continued the
order of Gillese J.A. restraining the husband from disposing of
his assets until the letter of credit was provided.
 Attempting to implement the intention of Blair J.A. in
making the security for costs order, I decline to exercise my
discretion to dismiss the appeal under rule 61.06(2). Instead,
I order that the automatic stay on the judgment of Jarvis J.
be lifted. When the trial costs are awarded, there will be no stay
on their payment.
 As success is divided, there will be no order as to costs.