Petrisor v. Ramani, 2026 ONCA 520

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Petrisor v. Ramani, 2026 ONCA 520 Date: 2026-07-15 Docket: M57068 & M57248 (COA-25-CV-1124)

Sossin, Monahan and Osborne JJ.A.

Between

Nick Petrisor Applicant (Appellant/Moving Party)

and

Patricia Ramani Respondent (Respondent/Responding Party)

Counsel: Nick Petrisor, acting in person Elliot Berlin, for the respondent/responding party

Heard: in writing

On review of the order of Justice M. Rahman of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated May 13, 2026.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1The appellant seeks a panel review of the order of Rahman J.A. dated May 13, 2026 (the “Order”), pursuant to s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The Order granted the appellant the relief he sought on the motion before Rahman J.A., namely, an extension of time to perfect his appeal by June 30, 2026. This was the third such extension of time granted by judges of this Court. The extended deadlines granted on December 24, 2025 and February 12, 2026 were both missed.

2The appellant failed to perfect his appeal by June 30, 2026. In addition to setting aside the Order, he now seeks a further extension of time.

3Notwithstanding that it is unclear whether the appellant had a right to present fresh evidence on a panel review motion, we have reviewed the fresh evidence he submitted to the court. It has no bearing on this panel review motion. Therefore, the fresh evidence motion (bearing file no. M57248) is dismissed.

4A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association, 2019 ONCA 210, at para. 9. Intervention under s. 7(5) is warranted only where the motion judge “failed to identify the applicable principles, erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result”: Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, 92 C.B.R. (6th) 214, at para. 14.

5The appellant has failed to identify any such error on the part of the motion judge. In fact, as noted above, the motion judge granted the appellant the very relief he sought on the motion, an extension to perfect until June 30, 2026, over the objection of the respondent.

6Accordingly, the panel review motion (bearing file no. M57068) is also dismissed.

7In accordance with r. 61.13(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, the Registrar is directed to dismiss the appeal (bearing file no. COA-25-CV-1124) for failure to perfect within the time limit prescribed by a judge of this court, with costs fixed at $750.

8Additionally, the respondent is entitled to costs of this panel review motion in the amount of $2,500, inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

9Given this outcome, the appellant’s motion for a stay pending appeal (bearing court file no. M57252) scheduled for July 22, 2026 shall be delisted. Following a hearing concerning that motion on July 10, 2026, Madsen J.A. reserved costs to the next appearance in the matter. Should the parties wish to seek costs for that motion, they may each file written submissions to the court not exceeding two pages double spaced by Friday, July 17, 2026 at 12:00 pm.