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 defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from Ottawa to Toronto, alleging an apprehension of institutional bias among the judiciary in Ottawa.

The defendant relied on an affidavit referencing a separate action involving a related company, which had resulted in adverse outcomes.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of bias, no connection to Toronto, and noting that the contract was executed and performed in Ottawa.

The motion was deemed ill-conceived and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Court of Appeal to review a single judge's decision denying permission to file a factum of at least 125 pages.

The panel found that the motion judge carefully considered the request and identified the relevant considerations.

Finding no reason to interfere, the panel dismissed the motion and ordered the appellant to file its factum within 30 days, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party sought leave to file an appellate factum exceeding the 30-page limit, proposing a draft factum of approximately 125 pages.

The moving party argued that the issues were complex, the trial was long, and it needed to rely on proposed fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension.

The court emphasized the importance of conciseness and efficiency in appellate advocacy, noting that the moving party's choice to raise numerous grounds of appeal did not warrant an extended factum.

The respondent sued the appellants for constructive dismissal.

During a summary judgment motion, the appellants sought production of draft affidavits, which the motion judge dismissed as privileged, while also prohibiting further examinations without leave.

The appellants appealed these orders to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the orders were interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, quashed the appeal, and directed the appellants to seek leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

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 plaintiff, a corporate entity managing a sports facility, brought an action against several soccer associations for negligence and intentional interference with economic relations (unlawful means tort).

The claims arose from the issuance of International Transfer Certificates for two players, the non-approval of an invitational tournament, and communications regarding unsanctioned indoor soccer leagues.

The court dismissed the action, finding that no duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the associations, as the plaintiff was not a member and had actively distanced itself from them.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence of unlawful acts against third parties or intent to harm the plaintiff, and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove any damages.

During a civil jury trial involving claims of negligence and intentional interference with economic interests against various soccer associations, the defendants moved to strike the jury following the plaintiff's closing address.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's counsel made 69 improper statements, including suggesting new legal claims, misstating the jury's role, attempting to adduce new evidence, and misstating the law and evidence.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff's counsel repeatedly crossed the line and that the cumulative effect of the misstatements rendered correction by an appropriate charge impossible.

The motion was granted, the jury was discharged, and the trial judge assumed responsibility for determining liability and damages.

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.