Edward Frank Kravcik

The respondent mother brought a motion to change a 2017 consent order to reinstate parenting time with her child, which had been suspended since 2020.

The mother struggled with severe substance abuse, mental health issues, and instability, and exhibited inappropriate behaviour during the virtual trial.

The court applied the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

Finding that the mother's current instability posed a risk to the child's safety and well-being, the court dismissed the motion to change, maintaining the suspension of parenting time.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended Society care for three Indigenous children with high needs.

The father sought their return under a supervision order, supported by the mother.

The court found that the protection concerns that led to the children's removal had not been mitigated by the parents, and the Society's efforts to provide culturally appropriate services and support were inadequate.

Despite the children's strong desire to return to their father, the court concluded that extended Society care was the only safe option.

However, recognizing the importance of the children's Indigenous identity and their meaningful relationships with their family, the court ordered robust access for both parents and the paternal grandmother.

In a child protection trial, the Children's Aid Society sought to qualify a pediatrician as a participant expert.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer and the parents opposed the qualification, arguing the pediatrician was engaged for litigation and his methodology was flawed.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and Rule 20.2 of the Family Law Rules, concluding the pediatrician could testify as a participant expert because his opinions were formed during his involvement as a treating pediatrician, not for litigation.

The court circumscribed the scope of his permissible evidence to his observations, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of the children.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated December 16, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,800.

The applicant father brought an emergency motion for interim primary residency of four younger children, police enforcement, and an order prohibiting the mother from removing children from the Niagara Region.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion for interim custody, which was not deemed urgent and was adjourned.

The court granted the applicant father's motion, finding the mother exercised poor judgment in leaving the children without adequate care.

The court ordered the four younger children to reside with the father, with police enforcement and a mobility restriction on the mother.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the applicant.

The Children's Aid Society brought a protection application for B.W.-B., seeking interim society care.

The Society later moved to vary the temporary order to place the child with kin (paternal uncle and partner), which the parents opposed, preferring foster care or return to their care.

The mother cross-moved for the child's return to parental care.

The court found the child would be at risk of harm if returned to the parents and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

While acknowledging the general preference for kin placement, the court dismissed the Society's motion for kin placement due to parental opposition, concerns about the kin's past issues, and particularly, the kin's hostile and vulgar communications regarding the mother, which would undermine reunification efforts.

The mother's cross-motion for parental return was also dismissed.

The temporary order for B.W.-B. to remain in Society care was continued.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application seeking to make a two-year-old child with special needs a Crown ward without access.

The child had been in foster care since birth.

The mother had significant cognitive and physical limitations, and her five previous children had been made Crown wards.

The father had serious health issues, including stage 4 cancer.

The parents sought a supervision order placing the child in the mother's care.

The court found that the parents lacked the capacity and skills to care for the child and that a supervision order would not mitigate the risks.

The court ordered that the child be made a Crown ward without access to facilitate adoption.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion on a status review application, seeking a final order granting custody of two children to their maternal great aunt and uncle.

The children's mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking custody or placement with supervision.

The court found that the children had flourished in the care of their great aunt and uncle for three years and that there was no realistic possibility of an outcome other than a custodial order in their favour.

Summary judgment for custody was granted, but the issue of access was directed to trial.

In a child protection status review application, the Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a custody order placing two children with the maternal grandfather and his life partner under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, together with continued supervised access for the mother and maternal grandmother.

The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, relying on the existing evidentiary record, prior findings, and evidence that the children had thrived in the proposed placement.

The court found the children were no longer in need of protection in that placement and that permanency and stability favoured a final order.

Access remained meaningful and beneficial, but supervision by the Society was continued in the children's best interests.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the Children’s Aid Society sought summary judgment making three children Crown wards without parental access.

The court considered Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules governing summary judgment and the statutory requirements for access to Crown wards under s. 59(2.1) of the Act.

Evidence demonstrated a long history of child protection involvement, sexual abuse by the father resulting in incarceration, and expert assessments indicating the mother lacked capacity to meet the children’s needs.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial and concluded that parental access would impair the children’s prospects for adoption.

Summary judgment was granted making the children Crown wards with sibling access but without parental access.

The applicant child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a Crown wardship order without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondents each filed plans of care proposing that the child be placed in their respective care under supervision.

The court found overwhelming evidence of the mother’s long-standing inability to parent, including prior Crown wardship orders for other children and expert evidence regarding cognitive limitations.

The father’s proposed plan of care was also rejected due to significant mental health issues, criminal history, substance use, lack of cooperation with the agency, and failure to recognize the child’s developmental delays.

The court held that the respondents failed to raise any genuine issue requiring a trial and granted summary judgment making the child a Crown ward without access.

In a child protection proceeding, the society sought Crown wardship without access in relation to a young child who had been apprehended due to malnourishment and remained in foster care with significant special needs.

The parents had been given time under a prior temporary wardship order to become capable of caring for the child but had not demonstrated progress.

The mother failed to file an answer or plan of care, and the father’s proposed plan relied on returning the child to the care of both parents without addressing the mother’s deficits or the child’s significant needs.

Pending the status review, the court considered the child’s best interests and the need for stability and permanency.

The court ordered that parental access be suspended temporarily to minimize disruption to the child and encourage timely participation in the proceeding.

A child protection status review under the Child and Family Services Act considered whether a child should be returned to the mother, placed under custody with relatives, or made a Crown ward for adoption.

The court found the child continued to require protection due to the mother's instability, failure to comply with prior supervision conditions, and lack of preparation to address the child's developmental and behavioural needs.

Evidence showed the child had made significant progress in a kinship placement where caregivers had actively secured medical, educational, and therapeutic supports.

The court held that permanence and stability through adoption best served the child’s long‑term interests.

Crown wardship was ordered with limited monthly access to the mother that would not impair the child’s adoption prospects.