Marek Pawel Balinski

The Appellant father appealed the relocation and decision-making portions of a final order from the Ontario Court of Justice, which had granted primary residence and sole decision-making for the child to the Respondent mother and allowed her to relocate to Poland.

The father argued the trial judge erred in finding the mother could be deported, failing to consider all evidence, and not properly applying the child's best interests.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, including the finding that the mother's precarious immigration status and her plan for the child in Poland were relevant to the child's best interests.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order placing a child in the custody of her maternal grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, with no access to her mother.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding the child's placement and access.

The court found no genuine issues requiring trial and granted the Society's motion.

The child had been apprehended following the mother's arrest for assault.

She was placed with her grandparents in British Columbia and received therapeutic treatment.

Electronic contact between the child and mother caused significant emotional distress, manifested in nightmares and behavioral problems.

The child consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother or return to her care.

The court found the mother had not taken responsibility for her abuse, had not engaged in appropriate treatment for her mental health issues, and had engaged in abusive and threatening behavior toward the grandparents and service providers.

The court ordered custody to the grandparents with no access to the mother, subject to the child's future wishes.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion on a status review application seeking to place a child in the care of her grandparents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent mother challenged the court's jurisdiction to make such an order, arguing that because a section 57.1 order is deemed to be made under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court must satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of that Act, including that the child be habitually resident in Ontario.

The court rejected this argument and found it had jurisdiction to make the order, holding that the deeming provision does not restrict the court's authority to make the initial custody order and that the Legislature would have explicitly stated such a restriction if intended.

Following a successful motion granting the mother primary residence of a child for school purposes, the court determined the issue of costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court confirmed that costs presumptively follow the event and considered factors including the parties’ relative success, conduct, and economic circumstances.

The father had acted unreasonably by attempting to register the child in his school district without a court order or the mother’s consent.

Although the mother sought $2,000 in costs, the court reduced the amount due to the father’s limited financial means while receiving disability benefits.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded payable in monthly installments.