Yehuda Levinson

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for damages, arguing it was limitation-barred.

The plaintiffs, owners of a vocational college, claimed losses due to an excessively protracted regulatory compliance process and a restraining order.

The court found that the limitation period began when the plaintiffs were declared compliant on January 12, 2012, and was tolled during Ombudsman-mediated compensation discussions from that date until June 24, 2013.

As the action was commenced on June 3, 2015, it was within the two-year limitation period.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

In a family law proceeding involving disputes over custody and property equalization, the respondent brought a motion seeking sole custody of the child, removal of restrictions on withdrawals from certain bank accounts imposed by an earlier order, and other procedural relief.

The applicant brought a cross‑motion seeking compliance with outstanding undertakings and disclosure obligations.

The court found the earlier financial restrictions had unfairly limited the respondent’s ability to support the children and fund legal representation, and ordered the removal of the withdrawal limits.

Relying on the views and preferences of the nearly 16‑year‑old child conveyed through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court granted the respondent permanent custody subject to specified access.

The court also directed steps toward resolution of the central dispute concerning the parties’ separation date and potential equalization claim.