Thomas D. Kerr

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 court heard three motions arising from two related actions involving a former employee and his employer.

The employer moved to strike portions of the employee's constructive dismissal claim and for summary judgment on an outstanding employee loan, while the employee moved for the appointment of a case management judge.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered them sealed, referred the matter for case management, and granted summary judgment for the loan balance of $45,119.05, with enforcement stayed pending the outcome of the constructive dismissal action.

The court heard three motions arising from two related actions involving a former employee and his employer.

The employer moved to strike portions of the employee's constructive dismissal claim and for summary judgment on an outstanding employee loan, while the employee moved for the appointment of a case management judge.

The court declined to strike the pleadings but ordered them sealed, referred the matter for case management, and granted summary judgment for the loan balance of $45,119.05, with enforcement stayed pending the outcome of the constructive dismissal action.

The plaintiff, Farley Manufacturing Inc., brought a motion for an order under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect the defendant, Oz Optics Ltd.'s, dome facility by two experts and senior representatives.

Oz Optics objected to one expert's qualification and the presence of plaintiff's representatives.

Farley Manufacturing also sought an order for mediation within 90 days, which Oz Optics opposed, arguing it should occur after expert reports.

The court granted the inspection order, finding it "useful" and "probative" and allowed the plaintiff's chosen experts and representatives to attend.

The court also ordered Oz Optics to pay the travel and accommodation costs for one expert due to Oz Optics' unreasonable conduct in obstructing the inspection.

Mediation was ordered to be held within 90 days.

The plaintiff brought a motion for refusals against the defendants, seeking answers and productions refused during 2012 examinations for discovery.

The defendants resisted, arguing the motion was brought past a court-ordered deadline of November 30, 2015, and that the information sought was irrelevant or res judicata.

The court found the motion was barred due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the firm timetable set by Master Roger, which required all refusals motions to be filed by the specified deadline.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and dismiss the counterclaim of the subject defendants due to their failure to pay prior costs awards and answer undertakings from discoveries.

The court declined to strike the pleadings immediately, opting instead to give the defendants one final opportunity to comply.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings until the defendants pay the outstanding costs and answer the undertakings by specified deadlines, failing which their pleadings will be struck without further notice.

The respondent, Anna Mauro, brought a motion for costs following an abandoned judicial review application and a previously dismissed stay motion.

The Divisional Court awarded the respondent $2,500 in costs for the stay motion, noting that while she was successful, the issues were not complicated and she had filed irrelevant material.

The court declined to award costs for the abandoned application, as the matter was moot and no steps were required by the respondent.

The parties entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) to market CFC-free refrigerants.

The relationship deteriorated, leading to multiple lawsuits involving claims of breach of contract, misrepresentation, and conversion.

The trial judge found that the Lam Group breached the JVA but that the Gu Group had waived its right to damages by its subsequent conduct in negotiating a new agreement.

The trial judge also denied the Gu Group an inquiry into damages on the Lam Group's interlocutory injunction undertaking because the Gu Group had flagrantly violated the injunction.

The Lam Group's cross-appeal regarding pre-contractual misrepresentations and oppression was dismissed.

The trial judge's award of $50,000 in punitive damages against the Lam Group for the conversion of a laptop computer was upheld.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals and the cross-appeal.