Ruth Diana Monique Richards

This decision addresses high-conflict post-divorce parenting, decision-making, and child support between Vivi Hatzis (aka Paraskevie Zevgolis) and George Hatzis.

The court maintains the existing 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule, divides major decision-making responsibilities, and sets out a detailed protocol for communication, travel, and FaceTime.

The court declines to follow the Office of the Children’s Lawyer’s recommendation to reduce the father’s parenting time, finding insufficient evidence to warrant a change.

The order includes detailed directions for holidays, travel, and child support, and provides for cost submissions.

The appellant appealed a consent order incorporating terms of a separation agreement, alleging the respondent misrepresented his income and failed to provide full financial disclosure, particularly after purchasing a new house.

The respondent had moved under Rule 14 of the Family Law Rules to grant the consent order, providing additional disclosure.

The motion judge granted the consent order and did not order further disclosure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 13 (requiring updated financial statements) was inapplicable given that full disclosure was made at the time of settlement and the consent order had been implemented.

The court also found the use of a Rule 14B motion appropriate, despite opposition, as the matter was deemed "seemingly uncomplicated" and the motion judge had reviewed the evidence.

This case involved the final determination of child and spousal support claims, which had been governed by a temporary "without prejudice" order since 2009.

The father sought to retroactively terminate child support for two adult children and spousal support, citing significant financial and health challenges, including bankruptcy and medical license issues.

The mother opposed the retroactive termination and sought continued support for all three children, including one pursuing a graduate degree.

The court, applying sections 15.1 and 15.2 of the Divorce Act, terminated child support for the eldest child (Charlotte) effective April 30, 2019, and for the second child (Stephanie) effective April 30, 2021.

Spousal support was terminated effective November 18, 2019, a date between the parties' proposals.

The court also adjusted the accumulated support arrears, significantly reducing the amount owed by the father due to overpayments based on the new final order.

The father applied under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for an order compelling the return of three children to Buffalo, New York, their habitual residence.

The mother had removed the children to Toronto, Ontario in September 2018 following the breakdown of the parties' relationship.

The court found that the children's habitual residence was Buffalo at the time of removal, that the removal was wrongful, and that the mother failed to establish the Article 13(b) exception based on grave risk of harm.

The court ordered the return of the children to Buffalo with specified undertakings regarding custody, access, and support arrangements pending determination of temporary orders by the Erie County court.

This decision addresses the costs arising from competing motions regarding children's residence and parenting time.

The respondent was largely successful in the underlying motions, leading to a presumptive entitlement to costs.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the applicant's conduct, while misleading regarding relocation, did not unduly protract proceedings.

The court reduced the respondent's claimed partial indemnity costs by five hours of lawyer time to account for issues (equalization, property, spousal support) settled by a prior consent order that included a 'no costs' provision.

The applicant was ordered to pay $9,505 in costs.

The parties filed competing motions regarding the children's primary residence and the respondent's parenting time.

The applicant sought to relocate the children to Sunderland, Ontario, and for them to attend school in Uxbridge.

The respondent sought to maintain the children's residence in Brantford or Hamilton and to have unsupervised overnight access.

The court found the applicant was deliberately deceitful about her relocation intentions and that the move would disrupt the children's stability.

The court denied the applicant's request to relocate and ordered the children to return to the Brantford-Hamilton area by the December school break.

The court granted the respondent's request for unsupervised alternate weekend overnight access, finding no convincing evidence for ongoing supervision and that the existing access was inadequate.

The applicant moved to strike the respondent's answer due to his repeated non-compliance with court orders and disclosure obligations in a family law proceeding.

The respondent had failed to provide medical documents, bank statements, tax returns, and settlement conference briefs despite multiple court orders and extensions.

The court allowed the motion to strike the answer, but granted the respondent conditional leave to participate in custody/access issues if he paid child support arrears and provided expert medical evidence proving his non-participation was due to a diagnosed mental health condition.

Further leave for financial issues was conditional on full disclosure.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the applicant.