The Role of Masters
 The masters play a very important role in civil litigation
proceedings and regularly address a wide variety of procedural
matters. As a result, they have developed deep expertise in the
law and practice relating to procedure. While traditionally mas-
ters presided in Toronto and Ottawa, the use of masters has now
been expanded to other regions in Ontario as well. This expan-
sion recognizes their valuable role in the litigation firmament. As
far back as Evans v. Bartlam,  A.C. 473 (H.L.), Lord Wright
of the House of Lords stated, at p. 484:
The Masters admirably exercise their discretion in routine matters of plead-
ing, discovery, interrogatories, venue, mode of trial, and other interlocutory
 The decision of a master granting or refusing to set aside
an administrative dismissal is discretionary. It is entitled to deference and may be set aside only if made on an erroneous legal
principle or infected by palpable and overriding error of fact:
1196158 Ontario Inc. v. 6274013 Canada Ltd. (2012), 112 O.R.
(3d) 67,  O.J. No. 3877, 2012 ONCA 544 and Chrisjohn v.
Riley Estate,  O.J. No. 5555, 2015 ONCA 713, 341 O.A.C.
70. It is not for an appellate court judge to reweigh the evidence
and substitute another discretionary decision for that of the master. Applying Zeitoun v. Economical Insurance Group (2009),
96 O.R. (3d) 639,  O.J. No. 2003 (C.A.), Cronk J.A. stated in
Wellwood v. Ontario (Provincial Police) (2010), 102 O.R. (3d)
555,  O.J. No. 2225, 2010 ONCA 386, at para. 28, that it
is settled law that an appeal from a master’s decision is not
Rather, on questions of fact and mixed fact and law, deference applies and the
role of the reviewing court is limited. An appellate court cannot substitute its
interpretation of the facts or reweigh the evidence simply because it takes a
different view of the evidence from that of the master. On questions of law,
the correctness standard applies: see Housen v. Nikolaisen,  2 S.C.R.
235; H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 401.
 Unfortunately in this case, for the following reasons,
I have concluded that interference with the master’s decision was
Applicable Legal Test
 Under rule 37.14(2), the court has discretion to set aside or
vary a dismissal order on such terms as are just. Specifically, rule
37.14(1) and (2) provide: