COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: Van Delst v. Hronowsky, 2022 ONCA 782
DATE: 20221114
DOCKET: M53633 (C69387)
Paciocco, George and Favreau JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Lynda Mary Van Delst
Applicant (Respondent/Responding Party)
and
Thomas John Hronowsky
Respondent (Appellant/Moving Party)
Thomas John Hronowsky, acting in person
Katherine Shadbolt, for the responding party
Heard and released orally: November 9, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] This is a panel review of the motion judge’s decision of May 4, 2022, which dismissed the appellant’s request for a stay of the orders from the court below, and for various other forms of relief. The appellant asks us to set aside the motion judge’s decision, to make an order reversing the enforcement steps already taken, and for an extension of time to file his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
[2] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination. A reviewing panel may only intervene if the motion judge erred in principle, reached an unreasonable result, or if the motion judge’s decision reflects legal error or a misapprehension of material evidence. Here the chambers judge did not err in principle, did not misapprehend material evidence, and the result is not unreasonable. There is no basis to interfere. The motion is therefore dismissed.
[3] Costs to the respondent in the amount $6,293, inclusive of HST and disbursements.
“David M. Paciocco J.A.”
“J. George J.A.”
“L. Favreau J.A.”