Mitchell

The moving party brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the responding party's underlying application, which sought to declare her a vexatious litigant.

The moving party argued the application was a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) intended to silence her.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while bringing legal proceedings constitutes expression, vexatious litigation does not relate to a matter of public interest.

The court held that the responding party was merely seeking a procedural gatekeeping order, not attempting to suppress protected expression.

The offender was convicted of incest and sexual assault against his 18-year-old biological daughter.

The offences occurred in the offender's home while the victim was residing there.

The court found significant aggravating factors, including breach of trust, unprotected intercourse, and profound psychological impact on the victim.

The offender showed no remorse and blamed the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment for incest and a concurrent three-year term for sexual assault, along with mandatory and discretionary ancillary orders.

The parties separated and resolved all issues except the primary residence of their two young children.

The applicant father sought to maintain the interim week-about shared parenting arrangement, while the respondent mother sought primary residence.

The court considered the mother's history of post-partum depression and the father's active involvement in parenting, including caring for their son who has epilepsy.

Finding that the children were thriving under the status quo and that both parents provided stable, loving homes, the court ordered the continuation of the week-about shared parenting schedule and joint custody.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff alleged she was waved into traffic by a cement truck driver, causing her to collide with the defendant Dalessandro's vehicle.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claim against Dalessandro, finding no evidence he breached the standard of care.

However, the court dismissed the summary judgment motion regarding the cement truck driver and owner, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the driver's identity created a genuine issue requiring a trial by jury.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' six-year-old child and restricted access for the respondent father, arguing that his acquired brain injury and past conduct posed safety risks.

The parties had previously executed a separation agreement providing for joint custody.

The Superior Court of Justice found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the joint custody arrangement, noting the mother had contrived conflict and unjustifiably restricted the father's access.

The court upheld joint custody, expanded the father's access schedule to alternating weekends and shared holidays, and ordered the father to repay funds he had misappropriated from the child's education account.