COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Roberts, Coroza and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Donna Lee Smith
Plaintiff (Appellant/Moving Party)
and
Michael Oliphant, Lauren Hollett, Unifund Assurance Company and Johnson Inc.
Defendants (Respondents/Responding Parties)
Donna Lee Smith, acting in person
Mark Koyama, for the responding parties Michael Oliphant and Lauren Hollett[1]
Damien Van Vroenhoven, for the responding parties Unifund Assurance Company and Johnson Inc.
Heard: June 26, 2026
On review of the decision of Justice Grant Huscroft of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated December 11, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The moving party, Donna Lee Smith, asks that a panel of this court review and vary the order of a motion judge denying her costs on her motion for an extension of time to perfect her appeal.
2The order was made in the context of the moving party’s appeal from the amended order of Papageorgiou J. of the Superior Court of Justice.
3The moving party received notice that her appeal would be dismissed for delay if not perfected by the deadline. The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to perfect. The motion judge granted the motion. In granting the motion, the motion judge commented that the moving party’s appeal was not strong, but it was not appropriate to deny the moving party her right to appeal on the basis of a relatively minor delay in perfecting.
4The motion judge declined to make an order as to costs for the motion.
5The moving party asks this panel to: (i) vary the motion judge’s order as to costs; and (ii) delete comments made by the motion judge in the endorsement about the strength of her appeal.
6The moving party submits that this panel should impose costs against the responding parties in the amount of $15,000 because she was the successful party on the motion. The moving party contends that the responding parties acted unreasonably in not consenting to her motion for an extension of time.
7During oral submissions, the moving party also alleged that the staff of this court acted inappropriately in processing her appeal.
8A panel of this court may interfere with an order under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.45, only if the motion judge failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result: Weidenfeld v. Weidenfeld, 2022 ONCA 860, at para. 11.
leave to appeal refused, [2023] S.C.C.A. No. 27. The decision as to costs is highly discretionary and entitled to deference.
9There is no authority to support the moving party’s request to delete comments by the motion judge in his reasons. In any event, the strength of the underlying appeal was a relevant consideration for the motion judge in deciding whether an extension should be granted and whether costs should be ordered.
10We see no reversible error in the motion judge’s decision not to order costs. The motion judge’s decision granted the moving party an indulgence for a missed deadline, despite noting that the merits of the moving party’s appeal appeared to be very weak. There is no basis to interfere with the decision not to award costs in these circumstances.
11Nor do we see any merit in the moving party’s unfounded claims of inappropriate behaviour by the staff of this court.
12Accordingly, the motion is dismissed. We fix costs payable to the responding parties, Unifund Assurance Company and Johnson Inc. in the amount of $1,500 all-inclusive.
“L.B. Roberts J.A.”
“S. Coroza J.A.”
“R. Pomerance J.A.”
1Mr. Koyama appeared but made no written or oral submissions on behalf of the responding parties.