COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20251224

DOCKET: M56131 (COA-25-CV-0275)

Roberts, Favreau and Rahman JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Gary Curtis and Tanya Rebello

Applicants (Appellants/Moving Parties)

and

Toronto Police Service Board

Respondent (Respondent/Responding Party)

Gary Curtis and Tanya Rebello, acting in person

Cara Davies, for the respondent/responding party

Heard: December 18, 2025

On review of the order of Justice David M. Paciocco of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated July 9, 2025.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[ 1 ] The appellants seek a panel review of the motion judge’s order that they pay to the respondent the costs of their abandoned appeal in the amount of $19,365.37. They argue that the motion judge erred by: 1) refusing their adjournment request in order to cross-examine the respondent’s affiant; and 2) fixing an amount that was unreasonable and disproportionate.

[ 2 ] We are not persuaded that the motion judge made any reversible error.

[ 3 ] We start with the standard of review. Panel reviews are not de novo determinations: Machado v. Ontario Hockey Association , 2019 ONCA 210 , at para. 9 . On review of a discretionary decision of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, the standard of review is one of deference: Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation , 2017 ONCA 827 , 138 O.R. (3d) 1, at para. 20 .

[ 4 ] A reviewing panel may only intervene if the chambers judge erred in principle or reached an unreasonable result, or if the chambers judge’s decision reflects legal error or a misapprehension of material evidence: Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale , 2021 ONCA 364 , at para. 18 ; Yaiguaje , at para. 21 .

[ 5 ] We see no such error here.

[ 6 ] As the motion judge noted, in accordance with r. 61.14(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure , R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, where, as here, a respondent has filed a response to an appeal that is subsequently abandoned, the respondent is entitled to its costs of the abandoned appeal, unless the court orders otherwise: 31 Kingsbury Inc. v. Delta Elevator Company Limited , 2021 ONCA 656 , at para. 3 . The motion judge found no reason to order otherwise. That conclusion was open to him.

[ 7 ] With respect to the appellants’ request to cross-examine the respondent’s affiant, the appellants had no absolute right to cross-examination. Cross-examination of an affiant is always subject to the court’s discretion and inherent power to control its own processes and prevent abuses of process: Beaver v. Hill , 2018 ONCA 415 , at paras. 19-20 ; Canada (Attorney General) v. Mennes , 2014 ONCA 690 , 122 OR (3d) 434, at paras. 28-30 . Cross-examination can be refused in cases where it appears to be in the interests of justice to do so: Ferguson and Imax Systems Corp. (1984), 1984 2021 (ON SC) , 47 O.R. (2d) 225, at pp. 236-37. That is what the motion judge concluded here. Again, this conclusion was open to him and is entitled to deference: Mennes , at paras. 28-30 .

[ 8 ] Finally, the motion judge made no error in the exercise of his discretion to fix costs in an amount that he found to be reasonable, proportionate and fair. Again, this conclusion was open to him based on the record before him. The appellants have not reached the very high threshold that would permit appellate intervention. We disagree that the motion judge’s decision is tainted by an error in principle or is plainly wrong: Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd. , 2004 SCC 9 , [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303, at para. 27 .

[ 9 ] The review motion is therefore dismissed.

[ 10 ] The respondent is entitled to its costs of this motion in the all-inclusive amount of $9,000.00.

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“L. Favreau J.A.”

“M. Rahman J.A.”