Yan v. Xu
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 138
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 26 February 2026
- Posture
- Family / Appeal Motion to Extend Time to Perfect Appeal (court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 26 February 2026
- Posture
- Family / Appeal Motion to Extend Time to Perfect Appeal (court of Appeal)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The motion judge's denial of a further extension was upheld because the moving party failed to demonstrate an error of law or a misapprehension of the evidence, and significant delay together with mounting prejudice justified refusal to extend time; the appellate panel will not substitute its own discretion for that of the motion judge.
Court disposition
Motion dismissed; order denying further extension to perfect the appeal upheld.
Orders
- Motion dismissed
- Order denying further extension to perfect the appeal upheld
- Costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $1,500
02
Material facts
Parties
Jue Yan
Applicant (appellant) Counsel: Pamila BhardwajWei Xu
Respondent Counsel: Joseph ParadisoAmounts and remedies
- Costs Awarded: CAD 1,500
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family / Appeal Motion to Extend Time to Perfect Appeal (court of Appeal)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether to grant further extension to perfect an appeal
- 02
Whether the motion judge erred in law or misapprehended evidence
- 03
Standard of review for appellate panel of motion judge's discretionary decision
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought to set aside the motion judge's order denying a further extension to perfect the appeal and requested that an extension be granted despite delay, asserting no error of law.
- Respondent
- Respondent contended that despite a prior extension and explicit warning no further extensions should be granted, that delay was significant and prejudice was mounting, and that the motion judge properly exercised discretion; respondent sought costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Yan v. Xu, 2026 ONCA 138
Appellate panel review of a motion judge is not de novo and is entitled to deference.
- 02
Yan v. Xu, 2026 ONCA 138
Delay and prejudice are proper grounds to refuse an extension of time to perfect an appeal.
- 03
Yan v. Xu, 2026 ONCA 138
Failing to identify an error of law or a misapprehension of evidence precludes appellate interference with a discretionary decision of a motion judge.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The motion judge's denial of a further extension was upheld because the moving party failed to demonstrate an error of law or a misapprehension of the evidence, and significant delay together with mounting prejudice justified refusal to extend time; the appellate panel will not substitute its own discretion for that of the motion judge.
Obiter and limits
- The motion judge had previously granted an extension and expressly cautioned that no further extensions would be granted.
- An appellate panel will not substitute its own balancing of factors for that undertaken by the motion judge.
Court disposition
Motion dismissed; order denying further extension to perfect the appeal upheld.
- Motion dismissed
- Order denying further extension to perfect the appeal upheld
- Costs awarded to the respondent in the amount of $1,500
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 26 February 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 26 February 2026
Yan v. Xu Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-02-26 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 138 Docket numbers COA-24-CV-1280, M56531 Judges Trotter, Gary T.; Monahan, Patrick J.; Dawe, Jonathan Subject Family Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Yan v. Xu, 2026 ONCA 138 DATE: 20260226 DOCKET: M56531 (COA-24-CV-1280) Trotter, Monahan and Dawe JJ.A.
BETWEEN Jue Yan Applicant (Appellant) and Wei Xu Respondent Pamila Bhardwaj, for the applicant Joseph Paradiso, for the respondent Heard: February 23, 2026 On review of the order of Justice Lene Madsen of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, dated December 3, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The moving party seeks to set aside the order of the motion judge denying an extension to perfect an appeal of a February 27, 2023 Superior Court order. [2] As the motion judge noted, the proceedings in this court have been subject to numerous delays. The motion judge had previously granted an extension to perfect the appeal to May 16, 2025, but also cautioned that no further extensions would be granted. Notwithstanding that clear direction the appeal has still not been perfected. In denying any further extension in her December 3, 2025 order, the motion judge noted the significant delay as well as the fact that prejudice to the responding party was mounting. [3] A panel review of a motion judge’s decision is not a de novo determination and is entitled to deference. The moving party has failed to identify any error of law or misapprehension of the evidence in the motion judge’s analysis and essentially asks us to substitute our balancing of the relevant factors for that undertaken by the motion judge. That is not our role, and we see no basis to intervene. The motion is dismissed, with costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,500. “Gary Trotter J.A.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.” “J. Dawe J.A.”
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.