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.