Nicholas Alexis Karnis

The appellants, four corporate entities and their principal, appealed a Superior Court decision that confirmed an assessment officer's assessment of four accounts from their former solicitors, totaling $148,120.95.

The appellants argued the assessment officer exceeded jurisdiction, erred in findings, and showed reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the reviewing judge's decision, which had applied a deferential standard of review.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, OZ Merchandising Inc., appealed the dismissal of its action for negligence and intentional interference with economic interests against several soccer associations.

It also sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that OZ Merchandising failed to prove duty of care, breach, or damages for negligence, and failed to prove intent, unlawful act, or damages for intentional interference.

The court also dismissed allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial bias (personal, institutional, and ethnic).

Leave to appeal the costs order was granted, but the costs appeal was also dismissed, affirming the substantial indemnity costs awarded against OZ Merchandising and personal costs against its president, Mr. Sezerman, due to his control over the litigation and egregious conduct.

The plaintiff, OZ Merchandising Inc., sought to defer the determination of costs following the dismissal of its claims against the Eastern Ontario District Soccer Association (EODSA), The Ontario Soccer Association (OSA), and the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA).

The plaintiff also argued for a Bullock or Sanderson order and partial indemnity costs.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's requests, finding no basis to defer costs pending appeal or resolution of claims against other defendants.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful defendants from the date of their offers to settle, citing the plaintiff's egregious litigation conduct and the pursuit of unfounded allegations.

Additionally, the court found Omur Sezerman, a non-party, jointly and severally liable with the plaintiff for the trial costs due to his direct control over counsel and conduct undermining the administration of justice.

The defendants (Oz Optics Ltd., Zahide Sezerman, and Omur Sezerman) brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, Justice Sally Gomery, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Their arguments were primarily based on the judge's decision to adjourn their summary judgment motion in January 2019 and previous costs awards that allegedly favoured the plaintiff, Mr. Kerr.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no cogent evidence of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge emphasized the high threshold for such claims, particularly for case management judges, and stated that a litigant's disappointment with a decision or perceived prejudice from procedural rulings is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The plaintiff, Oz Merchandising Inc., brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim for the eighth time, seeking to introduce new allegations of vicarious liability against the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) and Ontario Soccer Association (OSA) for the acts of the defunct Canadian Professional Soccer League (CPSL), and to increase a claim for lost player transfer fees from $100,000 to $42 million.

The CSA vigorously opposed the amendments.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendments would cause irreparable prejudice to the defendants due to the late stage of the 14-year-old proceeding, were largely statute-barred, involved a novel and insufficiently pleaded duty of care, and introduced untenable collateral issues related to match-fixing.

Minor grammatical edits to the existing pleading were permitted, but the substantive changes to the monetary claims and named players were disallowed.