Court File and Parties
Court: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Date: 2024-10-01 Docket: M54914 (COA-23-OM-0297)
Before: Hourigan, Trotter and Gomery JJ.A.
Between: Tanja Natasha Majcen, Applicant (Moving Party) And: Joseph Ryan Nelson, Respondent (Responding Party)
Counsel: Tanja Natasha Majcen, acting in person Joseph Ryan Nelson, acting in person
Heard: September 27, 2024
On review of the order of Justice Lois B. Roberts of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated February 29, 2024.
Reasons for Decision
[1]
Background
The applicant seeks a review of the order of the motion judge who dismissed her request for an extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from the order of Warkentin J. of the Superior Court of Justice. On October 5, 2023, Warkentin J. dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the judgment of MacKinnon J., dated August 10, 2022, and from MacKinnon J.’s costs order, dated September 1, 2022.
2It is not necessary to recount the lengthy history of these family law proceedings, that date back to August 2020. This litigation has involved numerous judges of the Superior Court concerning parenting issues, decision-making authority, and child support.
3The applicant filed her application for leave to appeal on time, but then failed to perfect her application for leave to appeal in a timely manner. She received a Registrar’s notice dated January 9, 2024 that her leave motion would be dismissed if she did not perfect her appeal before January 24, 2024. She failed to do so and then applied for an extension of time.
4In dismissing the application for an extension of time, the motion judge applied the well-established principles set out in Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Frose, 2013 ONCA 131, 114 O.R. (3d) 636, at paras. 15-16. She determined that “the justice of the case” did not warrant an extension. The motion judge found that the applicant’s leave application lacked merit. She also had significant regard for the parties’ young daughter “who is entitled to stability and finality and who is necessarily prejudiced by any delay in the matter.”
[5]
Analysis
A panel of this court may review a motion judge’s decision. The nature of such a review is addressed in Correct Building Corporation v. Lehman, 2022 ONCA 723, at para. 3:
A panel review of a motion judge’s decision under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is not a de novo determination: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9. Discretionary decisions of a motion judge are entitled to deference. However, a reviewing panel may intervene if the motion judge erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result, or if the motion judge’s decision reflects legal error or a misapprehension of material evidence: Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, 462 D.L.R. (4th) 228, at para. 18; Iqbal v. Mansoor, 2022 ONCA 198, at para. 2.
6We see no errors in the analysis of the motion judge. She identified the factors that must be considered on a motion for an extension of time. After carefully considering the relevant factors in this case, she concluded that the “justice of the case” did not warrant an extension of time. Her reasons explain in clear terms why she reached this decision. Her decision is entitled to deference on review.
[7]
Disposition
The application is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
“C.W. Hourigan J.A.” “Gary Trotter J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.”