Omur Sezerman

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 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.