NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-00040585-0000
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
STAVROS (a.k.a. STEVE) TSAGARIS
Applicant
– and –
GEORGIA KOLOVOS
Respondent
Nikan Barari, Counsel for the Applicant
Geoffrey Wells, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: November 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 2017; February 15, 23, 2018; February 14, May 13, September 19, 23, 26, 2019
JUDGMENT
F. GRAHAM J.
Introduction and Issues
1The parties were married in September 2010. There are two children of the marriage. S was born in February 2011. P was born in in April 2012. The parties separated in March 2013 when S was two years old and P was eleven months old. Currently, S is nine years old and P is eight years old.
2Mr. Tsagaris’ pleadings on financial issues were struck in March 2017. A final order was made on the financial issues in August 2018.
3The issues remaining for determination at trial are custody and parenting schedule.
4Mr. Tsagaris seeks joint custody and shared parenting. Ms. Kolovos seeks sole custody and no parenting time for Mr. Tsagaris.
Assessment of Witnesses’ Credibility and Reliability
Mr. Tsagaris
5Mr. Tsagaris is a party to the proceeding and, for that reason, likely has at least some bias, whether conscious or not, in favour of his position on the issues.
6In fact, he was openly hostile toward Ms. Kolovos’ counsel during cross-examination. His demeanour was loud and aggressive. He was non-responsive, confrontational, and, at times, followed his own agenda. For example, when asked when the parties initially moved into the matrimonial home, he gave a lengthy rambling answer about putting Ms. Kolovos on title when she moved back into the home after their initial separation. He gave similar rambling and non-responsive replies when asked about the rules at Brayden Supervision Services (“Brayden”) and whether the children attended several of eight scheduled visits at Brayden. On each of these occasions, after the court directed him to answer the question, he gave a concise and direct answer. When asked whether the baby monitor was turned on while he was in P’s room on the date of separation, he responded by asking Ms. Kolovos’ counsel whether anyone was crying, whether anyone was in a bad mood, and what was the point of the question.
7Mr. Tsagaris also demonstrated bias when he refused to comply with a court order that required him to disclose his CPP disability application. When asked about his non-compliance by Ms. Kolovos’ counsel at trial, he replied, “Why would I give a copy of my CPP application to you?”
8Mr. Tsagaris gave unbelievable testimony when he was asked whether he threatened to throw a can of soft drink at Ms. Kolovos while he was calling her derogatory names during a confrontation at a child exchange in May 2014. He replied, with a wide smile, that during the confrontation, he happened to notice a can of soft drink in his truck, wondered how it got there, so he picked it up just to look at it, and she must have misinterpreted his intention. Ms. Kolovos testified that he picked up the soft drink can and said that he was going to throw it at her.
9Mr. Tsagaris’ testimony was internally consistent. His testimony was externally consistent except with some of Ms. Kolovos’ testimony.
10Given the combative demeanour exhibited by Mr. Tsagaris in the witness box, the court considered whether to give his testimony little or no weight. The