Is a prothonotary's order not to disturb a judge's own discretion on appeal?

Discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought not to be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly wrong, in the sense that the exercise of discretion by the prothonotary was based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the law, or they raise questions vital to the final issue of the case. In such circumstances, the judge ought to exercise his own discretion de novo: Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., 1993 CanLII 2939 (FCA), [1993] 2 F.C. 425. The decision under appeal raises questions that are clearly vital to the final issue of the case. I will therefore exercise my discretion de novo. Analysis