COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sossin, Monahan and Wilson JJ.A.
DOCKET: M56813 (COA-25-CV-1198)
BETWEEN
Erin Kathryn Johnson
Applicant (Respondent/Responding Party)
and
Bradley William Johnson
Respondent (Appellant/Moving Party)
DOCKET: M56963 (COA-25-CV-1198)
AND BETWEEN
Erin Kathryn Johnson
Applicant (Respondent/Moving Party)
and
Bradley William Johnson
Respondent (Appellant/Responding Party)
Bradley Johnson, acting in person
Erin Kathryn Johnson, acting in person
Stella Hines, appearing as agent for Erin Kathryn Johnson
Heard and rendered orally: June 15, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Pamela L. Hebner of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 19, 2025 with reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 5346.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1This appeal involves a family law dispute. The appellant brings a motion under s.7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to review the endorsement of Madsen J.A. dated March 12, 2026 (2026 ONCA 189).
2A panel review under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is not a de novo hearing. Discretionary decisions of a single judge are entitled to deference, and especially case management decisions.
3The appellant argues that the case management judge failed to accept the appellant’s proposal to avoid the ordering of transcripts by using other material already in the record, supplemented as needed through a process of identifying the necessary portions of the transcripts.
4Assuming without deciding that case management decisions are subject to panel reviews, we see no basis to interfere with the case management judge’s decision in this case. The case management judge explained the basis for her determination that the interests of justice required that the full transcript be available and provided a reasonable extension of time for the appellant to meet that requirement, which he failed to do. The motion is dismissed.
5As a result of dismissing the motion for the panel review, it is not necessary to consider the respondent’s motion for dismissal due to delay. The motion for dismissal for delay is properly dealt with by Registrar in accordance with Rule 61.13(1)(a) and accordingly, we refer the motion to the Registrar.
“L. Sossin J.A.”
“P.J. Monahan J.A.”
“D.A. Wilson J.A.”