Background
Nick Petrisor appealed a decision and sought multiple extensions of time to perfect his appeal. Justice Rahman of the Court of Appeal granted a third extension on May 13, 2026, extending the perfection deadline to June 30, 2026. This followed two earlier extensions granted on December 24, 2025 and February 12, 2026, both of which the appellant had missed. Petrisor failed to perfect his appeal by the June 30 deadline and then sought a panel review of Rahman J.A.’s extension order. He also filed a fresh evidence motion in connection with the panel review.
A panel review under section 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act is available only where a motion judge failed to identify applicable principles, erred in principle, or reached an unreasonable result. Here, the motion judge had in fact granted the very relief Petrisor sought—an extension to June 30, 2026—over the respondent Patricia Ramani’s objection.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal (Sossin, Monahan, and Osborne JJ.A.) dismissed both the fresh evidence motion and the panel review motion. The Court found that Petrisor failed to identify any error by the motion judge. To the contrary, the motion judge had already granted the relief Petrisor sought on the motion before her.
Having rejected the panel review, the Court invoked Rule 61.13(3.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and dismissed the underlying appeal for failure to perfect within the time limit prescribed by a judge of the Court. Petrisor was ordered to pay costs of $750 on the appeal itself, plus $2,500 in costs of the panel review motion (inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements). The Court also delisted Petrisor’s scheduled motion for a stay pending appeal and directed the parties to file written cost submissions regarding a July 10, 2026 motion hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not de novo; intervention requires demonstration of a failure to identify principles, error in principle, or an unreasonable result.
- Successive extensions of procedural deadlines do not insulate an appellant from dismissal where deadlines continue to be missed; the Court enforces its own orders.
- An appellant cannot obtain panel review relief by seeking to overturn a motion judge’s order that actually granted the relief requested, particularly when the appellant then fails to comply with the granted extension.
- Courts may impose substantial costs sanctions—here $2,750 total—to deter serial non-compliance with procedural deadlines.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that appellate courts will enforce procedural deadlines strictly, even after granting multiple extensions. While extensions are available in appropriate circumstances, litigants who secure extensions but then repeatedly miss deadlines cannot use panel review as a second bite at the apple. The decision signals that courts will not indefinitely tolerate serial missed deadlines and will deploy costs orders to reinforce compliance.
For appellants and their counsel, the case underscores the importance of meeting self-imposed or court-ordered deadlines. Once an extension is granted, further delays trigger not only appeal dismissal but also significant costs exposure to the opposing party. The decision also clarifies that panel review is a narrow remedy focused on legal error, not an opportunity to relitigate a motion judge’s discretionary decision to grant relief that the appellant had requested.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.