Edward Frank Kravcik

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.

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.