Can a party to a consent judgment be made against a property that was to stand as security for the equalization payment?

There are elements of the judgment with respect to which no order can be made pursuant to Rule 344. For example NE 28 was to stand as security for the equalization payment and the judgment contained a mechanism by which the petitioner could realize upon the security. In my view no practical relief can be granted with respect to NW 28 as the respondent subsequently registered a significant mortgage against the property. I do note the petitioner failed to register a caveat against that property. However the petitioner is not without a remedy with respect to the other elements of the consent judgment. As observed at paragraph 8 of Volk, supra she has all the remedies available to a judgment creditor. Relief may also be available pursuant to ss. 26(3)(p) and 26(4) of The Family Property Act with respect to some elements of the judgment. King v. King, 2008 SKQB 60.