Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant alleged copyright infringement of photographs by a national sports body and two athletes.

• Multiple motions and appeals focused on discovery disputes and procedural fairness.

• The Federal Court dismissed motions due to irrelevance, abuse of process, and inadequate evidence.

• Allegations of judicial bias were rejected for lack of cogent and convincing proof.

• The appellant failed to comply with procedural rules regarding security for costs.

• The Federal Court of Appeal upheld all lower court decisions and awarded costs to the respondents.

Facts and outcome of the case

Christopher Johnson brought a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Federal Court on November 3, 2021, under docket T-1686-21. He alleged that the Canadian Tennis Association and two professional tennis players, Denis Shapovalov and Felix Auger-Aliassime, infringed his copyright in certain photographs. The litigation was slow-moving, requiring over 40 combined court directions and orders, and was marked by extensive procedural disputes.

The case reached the Federal Court of Appeal through three separate appeals. In appeal A-369-23, Mr. Johnson challenged a ruling that denied his motion to compel additional responses in written discovery. The Associate Judge had found the questions to be repetitive, irrelevant, or abusive, amounting to an improper second examination for discovery. The Federal Court affirmed this ruling, rejecting Johnson's bias allegations and confirming that there was no legal or factual error.

In appeal A-168-24, Johnson contested the decision to strike 808 out of 820 written discovery questions posed to Shapovalov. The Associate Judge had cancelled a scheduled hearing after finding that Johnson provided generic, non-substantive responses in the required refusals chart. Again, the Federal Court agreed with the Associate Judge’s conclusions, including the absence of judicial bias.

Appeal A-111-24 dealt with the respondents’ motion for security for costs under Rule 416(1)(f) of the Federal Courts Rules. The Federal Court granted the motion, finding that Johnson owed significant unpaid costs from both this and a related provincial action. Since Johnson did not claim or prove impecuniosity, the court required him to post $44,870.50 as security before proceeding. It also warned that failure to pay within 60 days could result in dismissal of the case.

On June 26, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed all three appeals. It found no reviewable error in any of the lower court’s decisions, including the discretionary rulings on discovery and costs. The Court emphasized that the standards for appellate intervention were not met and awarded a single set of costs to the respondents, calculated under Tariff B. The decision reinforced the importance of procedural discipline and the high bar for proving judicial bias.