Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: M.M., Applicant
AND:
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Office of the Children’s Lawyer, C.L., Toronto Police Service (Party to Motion), Respondents
BEFORE: M. Kraft, J.
COUNSEL: M.M., In-person Margarida Pacheco, for the Respondent - Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Julia Tremain, Margarida Pacheco (Agent) for the Respondent – Office of the Children’s Lawyer C.L., In-person Alexandra Miller, for the Respondent – Toronto Police Service (Party to Motion)
HEARD: January 22, 2026
Endorsement
Nature of the Motion
1In the appeal of Justice Jones's November 6, 2025 order, the applicant, M.M., moves for a court order requiring the Toronto Police Services (TPS) to investigate the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST), the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), and 15 named individuals.
2CAST, the OCL and the TPS take the position that there is no jurisdiction to compel the TPS to investigate.
Background
3During a five-day protection trial ending February 28, 2025, Justice Jones issued a publication order on February 26, 2025, prohibiting the appellant, M.M., from disclosing information about the child, the family, or protection proceedings. The order further required M.M. to remove such content from the internet and social media and banned the recording or posting of court attendances and interactions with the Society.
4The appellant brought a 14B motion seeking to vary the publication order. That motion was dismissed on November 6, 2025. The appellant has appealed the dismissal of her 14B motion and the underlying decision of Justice Jones that led to the publication ban. That is the subject of the current appeal.
5This motion is brought by the appellant within this appeal.
6Justice Hood dismissed two of M.M.'s prior appeals on December 17, 2025: one regarding the September 9, 2025 refusal to dismiss the protection file, and another regarding the September 22, 2025 trial decision.
7The appellant is seeking identical relief regarding TPS in a motion for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Issue to be decided
8The issue to be decided is whether the court can compel the TPS to investigate the entities and individuals identified by the appellant.
9M.M. requests a TPS investigation into parties she suspects of child trafficking regarding her son. Specifically, she seeks to determine if these entities are conspiring or profiting financially by filing false claims about her parenting during the protection proceedings.
10M.M. further submits that both the police and a Justice of the Peace advised her that a court order is required to compel a TPS investigation. She clarified that she is not seeking arrests or charges, but rather an investigation into whether Society workers are being paid by her ex-spouse, C.L., or other parties to influence her son’s removal or prevent his return through false allegations.
11Additionally, the appellant requests a TPS investigation into potential fraud under s.380(2) and 3801(1) of the Criminal Code involving her son and the family of retired Justice Lyn. In summary, she alleges that these individuals and entities are victims of s.3802(2) and s.380(1) of the Criminal Code and Toronto Police should investigate and provide reimbursement to them if they are victims. She argues that if they are innocent, such an investigation would cause no harm.
The Law
12Police do not owe a private or public duty to any individual to investigate criminal complaints and cannot be ordered to exercise their discretion in favour of investigation: Burgiss v. Canada (Attorney Genera), 2013 ONCA 16, at paragraph 2 (Leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed) and Holmes v. White, 2014 ONSC 5809, para. 16.
13The appellant seeks mandamus, a rare judicial remedy where the court commands a government official or body, such as the TPS, to perform a specific act. Because this raises issues of judicial authority and the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, the court only exercises this power in exceptional circumstances. The applicable test was established in Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) 1993 3004 (FCA), [1994] 1 F.C. 742 (Fed. C.A.) at para. 45, aff’d 1994 47 (SCC), [1994] SCJ No. 113.
14Under the Apotex test, the requirements for mandamus include: (a) the respondent must have a legal duty to act; (b) that duty must be owed directly to the applicant; and (c) the remedy cannot be used to compel a specific outcome where the official holds unfettered discretion.
15I find that the appellant has failed to meet the test for mandamus. The TPS does not owe a public or private law duty to any specific individual to investigate a crime, as established in Burgiss v. Canada 2013 ONCA 16 and Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 at para. 40. In Clemens v. Canada, [1995] O.J. No. 1094 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.), the court affirmed that the disposition of police resources and the prioritization of investigations remain within the discretion of the police; no court can or should direct them on such matters.
16The TPS owes no legal duty to the appellant to investigate specific people or entities. Although the appellant has already filed a complaint, the police exercised their discretion and declined to investigate. The appellant is free to challenge that decision through the appropriate complaint channels, which she confirmed she has already done.
17Mandamus cannot compel a specific outcome or dictate how a public official exercises their discretion. If police discretion is unfettered, mandamus is unavailable; if it is fettered, a court may compel the official to make a decision but cannot dictate the result. Ultimately, the court cannot interfere with police operational discretion, as only the Chief and their officers can decide whether to investigate a crime.
ORDER
18For all of the above reasons, this court dismisses the appellant’s motion. There shall be no order for costs.
The Honourable Justice M. Kraft
Date: March 13, 2026