This decision resolves a high-conflict family law dispute involving divorce, parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division.

The court grants the father sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child, C.M.M., with the mother’s parenting time to be supervised due to longstanding concerns about her mental health and repeated unsubstantiated abuse allegations.

The mother is ordered to undergo psychiatric and psychological assessments, and her parenting time may be reviewed after December 1, 2026.

The court orders the mother to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, an equalization payment, and reimbursement for funds received from the sale of the matrimonial home.

The father is found to have fully satisfied his spousal support obligations.

The decision includes detailed analysis of the parties’ credibility, financial circumstances, and the best interests of the child.

This decision addresses summary judgment motions by the Crown defendants and Thunder Bay police defendants in a civil action brought by M.V. following her acquittal on extortion charges.

The court granted partial summary judgment dismissing M.V.'s claims for false arrest and Charter breaches as statute-barred, but allowed her claims for negligent investigation and negligence to proceed to trial, finding the limitation period for those claims began only upon her acquittal.

The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the existence of reasonable and probable grounds could be determined on the record, holding that the defendants had not met their burden on summary judgment.

The defendant MacEwen Petroleum Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' wrongful dismissal claim as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period should run from the date of their criminal acquittals, not the date of termination, citing exceptions for claims against state agents.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was discoverable on the date of termination (November 9, 2009) and did not fall within the narrow exceptions for tolling the limitation period, which are typically reserved for cases involving police misconduct where civil and criminal claims are "mirror images." The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendant, Toronto Police Services Board, moved for summary judgment to dismiss an action brought by the plaintiffs, Riaz Bagha and Sajidha Bagha.

The plaintiffs' action alleged negligent investigation, false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, stemming from extortion charges laid against them that were later withdrawn.

The defendant argued that peace bonds entered into by the plaintiffs were dispositive of the claims and that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that peace bonds do not automatically bar malicious prosecution or negligent investigation claims, requiring a "Mammoliti analysis" into the underlying reasons.

Significant factual disputes existed regarding the investigation's thoroughness, the accuracy of police synopses, and the circumstances surrounding the peace bonds.

The court concluded that there were genuine issues requiring a trial and that the summary judgment process was not suitable for a fair and just determination on the merits, dismissing the defendant's motion.