Mariola Bednarska

The applicant mother removed the parties' child from Poland to Canada and subsequently commenced a family proceeding in Ontario seeking a divorce and sole custody.

The respondent father brought a motion within the proceeding for the return of the child to Poland pursuant to the Hague Convention.

The mother argued that the father had consented to the child's relocation to Canada.

The court found that the written consent was ambiguous and did not establish a shared intention to change the child's habitual residence.

The court concluded that the child was wrongfully removed and ordered his return to Poland.

The applicant, a Polish resident, sought the return of her seven-year-old daughter who was wrongfully removed to Ontario by the respondent father in July 2014.

The applicant had been exercising sole custodial rights in Poland and did not consent to the child's removal.

The respondent claimed the applicant was an unfit parent and that returning the child would expose her to grave risk of harm.

The court found that the applicant had exercised custodial rights, did not consent to the removal, and that the respondent's allegations of harm were not credible.

The child's school records and testimony from a childcare provider demonstrated the child's well-being in Poland and her expressed desire to return to her mother.

The court ordered the child's return to Poland pursuant to the Hague Convention.

A trial concerning custody and access arrangements for Austin Andrew Lavoie, born November 13, 2009.

The applicant sought sole custody with supervised access to the respondent and child support.

The respondent sought joint custody and access.

The court found that both parents are excellent and committed parents.

The applicant deliberately excluded the respondent and his family from the child's life for approximately 18 months and continued to marginalize the respondent's role.

The court rejected the applicant's allegations of domestic violence and abuse as exaggerated and unsubstantiated.

The court determined that neither parent should have sole custody, and instead imposed a parallel parenting regime with clear decision-making parameters.

The respondent was granted joint custody with increased parenting time, including overnight access.

The applicant was given decision-making authority over medical matters, while the respondent was given authority over educational matters.

The court ordered detailed communication protocols and a comprehensive parenting schedule.

The applicant sought to vary access and child support provisions arising from a Florida divorce judgment after child support had been terminated when the children did not attend summer access visits with the respondent.

The court found it had jurisdiction and that a material change in circumstances existed since a prior Ontario application was dismissed.

Evidence demonstrated that the children relied primarily on the applicant for financial support while pursuing post-secondary education, and that the respondent had the ability to pay despite ceasing support in 2007.

The court imputed income to the respondent and reinstated retroactive child support, varied the access terms to reflect the children’s adulthood and autonomy, and ordered proportionate contribution to educational expenses.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for vacation pay owed by his bankrupt employer.

The Officer had applied a newly enacted six-month limitation period under the Employment Standards Act, which barred the claim.

The Board held that the statutory amendment reducing the limitation period from two years to six months did not apply retroactively to extinguish the applicant's vested right to recover vacation pay.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the outstanding vacation pay plus interest.