What is the standard of review for a prothonotary's order in a personal injury case?

The plaintiff cited The Queen v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., 1993 CanLII 2939 (FCA), [1993] 2 F.C. 425 (F.C.A.), in which MacGuigan J.A. determined the standard of review for a prothonotary's decisions as follows: Discretionary orders of prothonotaries ought not to be disturbed on appeal to a judge unless: a) 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 facts, or b) they raise questions vital to the final issue of the case. Where such discretionary orders are clearly wrong in that the prothonotary has fallen into error of law (a concept in which I include a discretion based upon a wrong principle or upon a misapprehension of the facts), or where they raise questions vital to the final issue of the case, a judge ought to exercise his own discretion de novo.