Julie Craven’s torment seems unending
BRANTFORD — Once again, it has taken a judge to rule against the cruelty of a family who continue to torment the mother of a young murder victim.
In this latest court judgment, Julie Craven has been awarded $565,000 from the estate of her ex-husband who stabbed their eight-year-old son to death then held her at knifepoint until police shot and killed him.
In his scathing judgment, Justice Thomas Lofchik blasted estate executor Michael Osidacz for “spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees advancing frivolous and groundless defences to see to it that Julie Craven saw no or at least the minimal amount of the assets of the estate.”
The judge said Michael, the brother of Andrew Osidacz who was once married to Julie, mounted an “all-out defence” against the claims she made even though it “was clear virtually from the start” that Julie was “entitled to substantial damages.”
In 2006, while on a court-ordered visit, the eight-year-old — Jared — was repeatedly and fatally stabbed by his father in Brantford.
Andrew Osidacz also stabbed his new girlfriend and her young daughter, who both survived.
Andrew then drove to Julie’s home,
covered in their son’s blood, told her what he had done and held a butcher knife to her throat for 45 minutes.
He refused to allow her to call 911 to try to get help for Jared.
During that time, Andrew summoned his mother, Elizabeth Osidacz to the house.
She locked the door upon her arrival, according to Lofchik’s judgment, and “despite pleas for help from Julie, Mrs. Osidacz did nothing while in the residence to assist Julie Craven or Jared. She told Julie that she (Julie) had ‘pushed him too far’ in reference to Andrew and the unfolding tragedy.”
Eventually, Brantford police arrived.
Andrew refused to drop the knife “and just as he was about to plunge the knife into Julie’s throat he was shot to death by police, thus saving Julie’s life,” according to Lofchik.
Julie’s award in the lawsuit is meant to cover the wrongful death of Jared, general damages for Andrew’s attempt to murder her as well as for a previous assault for which he was criminally convicted, and her loss of income due to the severe PTSD that prevents her from ever working again.
The $565,000 seems a paltry sum for all this woman has survived but alas, Andrew wasn’t worth anything more.
His brother’s 11 years of legal manoeuvres to try to take the estate out of Julie’s hands and into his own (he and his mother, Elizabeth, were named as the sole beneficiaries in Andrew’s will) was a disgusting revictimization of a woman who has been through more than most of us can fathom. Lofchik certainly sees it that way. He ordered Michael — a retired City of Brantford employee who owns a couple of rental properties — to reimburse the estate in the amount of $71,277 to repay the assets used to fund his litigation against Julie. Lawyer Rick Simmons, of Ross and McBride, took over the case from another lawyer to see it through the trial.
“The litigation just ramped up,” he says of the estate’s long and sordid history. “Mistakes were made on both sides.”
He acknowledges the “animosity” between all parties involved. His client has until Monday to serve a notice of appeal on Julie and her lawyer. He declined to say if this would happen.
Michael Jaeger, Julie’s lawyer, said his client hopes there is no appeal.
Julie is also asking the court to order Michael to personally pay her $150,000 worth of legal costs.
Two years ago, a different judge also took aim at Andrew’s family for relentlessly tormenting Julie.
In that case, Richard Chmura Sr. — Andrew’s one-time brother-inlaw — was convicted by Justice David Broad of defamation and issued a rare permanent injunction preventing him from ever publishing anything about Julie, or her father, again.
Chmura was also ordered to pay $60,000 in damages to Julie. She has received not a penny.
What Julie has endured at the hands of Andrew, Elizabeth, Michael and Richard is so ugly it is breathtaking.
And it will likely never end.