Background
This family law proceeding arose from a dispute between Erin Kathryn Johnson and Bradley William Johnson. The appeal before the Court of Appeal originated from an order of Justice Pamela L. Hebner of the Superior Court of Justice dated September 19, 2025 (2025 ONSC 5346). Both parties were self-represented, with Erin Kathryn Johnson also appearing through an agent.
In the lead-up to the appeal hearing, a case management judge — Madsen J.A. — issued an endorsement on March 12, 2026 (2026 ONCA 189) requiring that full transcripts be produced for the appeal record. The case management judge determined that the interests of justice required the full transcript and granted a reasonable extension of time for the appellant to comply. Bradley Johnson failed to meet that requirement.
Bradley Johnson then brought a motion under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, seeking a panel review of the case management judge’s endorsement. His position was that the case management judge erred by not accepting his alternative proposal to avoid ordering full transcripts, which would have involved identifying and supplementing only necessary portions of the transcript from material already in the record.
The Court’s Holding
A three-judge panel comprising Sossin, Monahan, and Wilson JJ.A. dismissed the motion for a panel review. The court noted at the outset that a panel review under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is not a de novo hearing and that discretionary decisions of a single judge — particularly case management decisions — are entitled to deference.
Assuming without deciding that case management decisions are at all subject to panel review, the court found no basis to interfere. The case management judge had provided a reasoned explanation for why the interests of justice required the full transcript and had given the appellant a reasonable extension of time to comply. The appellant’s failure to satisfy that requirement foreclosed any challenge to the underlying order.
Consequent to dismissing the panel review motion, the court held it was unnecessary to address Erin Johnson’s cross-motion for dismissal of the appeal for delay. That motion was referred to the Registrar to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 61.13(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Key Takeaways
- A panel review under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is not a hearing de novo; a single judge’s discretionary decisions, particularly case management rulings, attract deference from a reviewing panel.
- The court left open the question of whether case management decisions are even amenable to panel review under s. 7(5), as the motion failed on its merits in any event.
- Where a case management judge has provided sound reasons for a procedural direction and granted a reasonable extension to comply, an appellant’s failure to comply with that direction will generally defeat any challenge to the ruling.
- A motion to dismiss an appeal for delay under Rule 61.13(1)(a) is properly directed to the Registrar, not resolved by a panel ruling on a collateral motion.
Why It Matters
This short decision reinforces the high bar facing litigants who seek panel review of case management orders in Ontario appellate proceedings. By confirming that such decisions attract deference — and by reserving the threshold question of reviewability entirely — the court signals that self-represented and represented appellants alike should comply promptly with transcript and record requirements set by case management judges, rather than expect a panel to second-guess those procedural directions.
The referral of the delay-dismissal motion to the Registrar also serves as a practical reminder of the proper procedural channel for Rule 61.13(1)(a) motions, clarifying the division of responsibilities between the Registrar and a sitting panel in appeal management.