Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: FS-20-20562
Date: 2025-05-12
BETWEEN:
Vivi Hatzis aka Paraskevie Zevgolis, Applicant
– and –
George Hatzis, Respondent
Applicant Counsel: Ruth D. Richards
Respondent: Self-represented
Heard: February 24–28 and March 3–5, 2025
Reasons for Judgment
Kerri Mathen
Introduction
[1] The Applicant, Paraskevie (“Vivi”) Zevgolis, and Respondent, George Hatzis, married on June 28, 2015, and divorced in 2022. They have an eight-year-old son.
[2] Pursuant to court order, the parties currently observe a 2-2-5-5 parenting schedule. Consistent with a report prepared by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer under section 112 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, Vivi wants to reduce George’s parenting and sole decision-making. Vivi has withdrawn any claim to spousal support. She seeks table child support, a share of section 7 expenses based on an imputed income to George, an order that no equalization is owed by either party, and costs on a full recovery basis.
[3] George represented himself at this trial. He believes the OCL report should not be followed because it is biased. He seeks to maintain the current equal parenting schedule and wants sole decision-making responsibility.
[4] This divorce is high conflict. The parties have made several complaints to CAS and police including physical and sexual abuse. No complaint has been verified save for a finding that A. is at risk of “emotional harm”.
[5] At the start of trial, George asked for an adjournment to pursue a half-day or full-day mediation. Vivi was opposed. I declined George’s request. The trial dates were set in July 2024. At an exit pretrial conference on February 10, 2025, the judge noted that the parties had made “substantive progress” but could not yet reach an agreement. The parties were encouraged to continue settlement discussions. There was no mention of further mediation. In the circumstances, delaying the trial was unwarranted. With court instruction and the patient cooperation of opposing counsel, George represented himself competently.
Issues and Brief Conclusion
[6] The issues for trial are:
a. How should parenting be allocated?
b. Who should have decision-making responsibility for A.?
c. How should communication be handled?
d. What child support, if any, should be paid?
e. Does either party owe costs?
[7] While I agree that A.’s relationship with his mother is strained, I am not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that changing the current parenting schedule is in A’s best interests. There shall be a protocol for travel, holidays, school breaks and summer vacations. I am persuaded that Vivi and George cannot effectively co-parent. Therefore, I will order divided responsibility for major decisions. A. must be registered in therapy. The parties must change their communication methods. Pursuant to table child support, George shall pay a set off. The parties shall share in section 7 expenses proportionate to income. Parties may make cost submissions.
The Law
[8] Since the parties are married, the applicable statute is the Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp) (DA). Under section 16(1), the primary consideration in making a parenting or contact order is the child’s best interests. In considering “best interests”, the court must give primary consideration to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security, and well-being: s. 16(2).
[9] The best interest factors set out in s.16(3) of the DA include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. The child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development;
b. The nature and strength of the child’s relationship with each spouse;
c. Each spouse’s willingness to support the development and maintenance of the child’s relationship with the other spouse;
d. The history of care of the child;
e. The child’s views and preferences, unless they cannot be ascertained;
f. The ability and willingness of a party to care for and meet the needs of the child;
g. Any family violence and its impact on, among other things,
i. The ability and willingness of any person who engaged in the family violence to care for and meet the needs of the child, and
ii. The appropriateness of making an order that would require persons in respect of whom the order would apply to cooperate on issues affecting the children.
[10] The governing principle for parenting time is that “a child should have as much time with each spouse as is consistent with the best interests of the child”: DA, section 16(6).
[11] Decision-making is governed by the same provisions as parenting. The court must ensure that any decision-making regime supports the best interests of the child.
[12] The following principles are relevant to making an order for joint parenting:
a. There must be evidence of historical communication between the parents and appropriate communication between them.
b. Joint decision-making cannot be ordered in the hope that it will improve their communication.
c. The fitness of both parents does not mandate joint parenting.
d. The fact that one parent professes an inability to communicate does not preclude an order for joint decision-making responsibility.
e. No matter how detailed the custody order there will always be gaps and unexpected situations, and when they arise, they must be able to be addressed on an ongoing basis.
f. The younger the child, the more important parental communication is.
See Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 ONCA 1625.
Analysis
The Applicant’s Witnesses
[13] My findings of fact are contained within the following analysis. Before turning to the issues, I address the witnesses, other than the OCL, called by the parties. These witnesses gave their evidence in chief through affidavit.
[14] Vivi called three witnesses:
a. George Zevgolis
b. Michael Zevgolis
c. Despina Ladas
[15] The witnesses do not confine their written statements to information within their direct knowledge. Instead, they offer opinion evidence about George’s parental fitness, his character and willingness to co-parent with Vivi. The affidavits also criticize Vivi’s parenting decisions, on grounds that seem weak or linked to an ulterior purpose – to help George.
[16] Given the issues in this case, I will rely on these witnesses for the following purposes:
a. To help show whether A. has experienced or is currently at risk of abuse from any person;
b. To corroborate whether the parties can communicate with each other for the purpose of co-parenting; and
c. To show how George and Vivi’s conflict affects A.’s well-being.
George Zevgolis (“GZ”)
[17] GZ is Vivi’s brother. After living for several years in Belleville, he now lives in Montreal. He visits Vivi three to four times a year.
[18] GZ deposed that George “takes issue with anyone who disagrees with him” and seeks to isolate Vivi and A. from her family.
[19] George has accused GZ of “behaving inappropriately” towards A. GZ denies this. George did not directly raise this accusation during cross-examination. However, he asked GZ if he thought A. was lying when he tells George certain things. GZ said that he believes that A. feels intense pressure to tell his father what he wants to hear. GZ said that George and George’s mother have hounded A. into making false allegations by interrogating A. about any time he spends in GZ’s presence.
[20] GZ deposed that during two of his visits with Vivi, George sent the police to conduct wellness checks. Under cross-examination, GZ said he did not speak to the police at length but explained his relationship to Vivi. The police left with no follow up.
[21] According to GZ, George constantly tells A. “Don’t forget the rules” when he learns that GZ is around. GZ takes this to be a warning about him. In cross-examination, George asked GZ whether the statement might be a general comment not directed to anyone. GZ did not accept this as plausible. Nor, for that matter, do I. Given the context, I find that George warned A. to be careful around GZ.
[22] GZ deposed, and reiterated under cross-examination, that during the 2024 Thanksgiving holiday A. “apologized for wrongfully accusing me in order to save himself.” GZ did not explain what he thought “save himself” meant.
[23] GZ was questioned about whether he ever made a sexualized comment about his niece. GZ said he had not.
[24] I am persuaded that George expressed a concern about GZ behaving inappropriately towards A. However, there is no credible evidence of any inappropriate behaviour.
[25] The relationship between George and GZ is highly strained. Consequently, GZ is not the most reliable witness with respect to the relationship between George and A. I am persuaded that GZ’s only exposure to the father-son dynamic is when GZ visits Vivi. GZ’s perspective is therefore affected by the profound tension in his and George’s relationship. That said, I accept that GZ sincerely believes that George is very controlling in relation to Vivi and A.
Michael Zevgolis (“Mike”)
[26] Mike Zevgolis is Vivi’s brother. He also lives in Montreal. His affidavit says that George is old-fashioned and expects Vivi to follow him “blindly”. Many of George’s actions are “for show” and “self-serving”.
[27] Mike deposed that Vivi “is not without her issues and can be very stubborn”. However, he has witnessed her personal growth since separation, which has made her “stronger”.
[28] Mike believes that A. is beginning to realize that his father is not respectful of his mother. At the same time, Mike has observed A. being disrespectful to his mother when his father is present.
[29] Under cross-examination, Mike said he believes George is a “bad father” because he does not care about “his son’s whole family” (meaning A.’s maternal family). Mike thinks that George “is trying to alienate A. from the Zevgolis side of the family.”
[30] Some of Mike’s narratives lacked detail and seemed exaggerated. For example, he said that during a barbeque George felt disrespected that Mike had taken in his chair and was upset “for weeks”. Under cross-examination, however, Mike could not say exactly when this happened.
[31] Mike has considerable resentment towards the Respondent. He is outraged by George’s abuse allegations. I believe that Mike is sincerely concerned for Vivi and A.’s welfare. I find that some of his descriptions of the Respondent (for example, as fixated on getting his own way) track what other witnesses say. He echoes other witnesses in stating that George does not treat the Applicant “as an equal and an adult.” However, Mike’s affidavit was inflammatory, which weakens its reliability.
Despina Ladas
[32] Despina has been Vivi’s close friend for twenty years. She lives in Montreal, visits Vivi occasionally, and speaks to her frequently.
[33] Despina spoke about George’s mother “belittling” Vivi. George’s mother has belittled Despina too, telling her at a funeral that while she was beautiful, she was eating too much.
[34] Despina said that A. is fine when he is at Vivi’s house talking to George but appears stressed when the situation is reversed. While Despina sees Vivi and A. only a few times a year, I gather she is on video and other calls with them more often. She acknowledged that in the last five years she has spent approximately ten days in their presence.
[35] Despina described George pressuring A. to see him on George’s birthday when A. was with Vivi. A. was “crying and frustrated.”
[36] A. has told Despina things about his father. However, the story that she offered – involving a picture taken with the lens oriented towards the house instead of the subject of the photo – was difficult to follow.
[37] Despina also says that George abuses his FaceTime calls by not keeping them to 10 minutes. Under cross-examination she said such calls should not be viewed as the non-access parent’s time, but strictly as a courtesy check-in.
[38] I find Despina credible. She did not obfuscate or prevaricate. While she is not an impartial witness, I accept her testimony regarding the effect of the conflict, and some of George’s behaviour, on A.
The Respondent’s Other Witnesses
[39] George called the following witnesses:
a. Betty Stavropoulos
b. Effie Fiore
[40] Just as with the three prior affiants, George’s witnesses offer opinion and, at times, argument. I rely on these witnesses for the same limited purposes as the others.
Betty Stavropoulos
[41] Betty is George’s long-time friend. She gave a glowing account of George as a father. He “prioritize[s] structure, education and discipline in a calm nurturing way”, and “ma[kes] learning fun and enjoyable”.
[42] Betty’s affidavit and testimony is highly critical of Vivi. She deposed that A. told her he “was not allowed to pray at his mother’s house”. A. was also frustrated that Vivi refused to take him to dance parties. A. was “devastated” at being pulled out of school during COVID-19 and complained about not being logged into online learning even when he asked his mother to.
[43] Betty gave evidence about Vivi’s trips to Chicago in July 2024 and Detroit in February 2025. But she only has indirect knowledge of these events. She did witness George’s distress at not knowing where A. was, and one occasion when Vivi came to George’s house to get a travel consent form.
[44] Betty gave her evidence in a straightforward manner. She was not evasive or defensive.
[45] I find on a balance of probabilities that Betty had some conversations with A. that made her concerned. I am not persuaded that she can speak to the truth of what A. told her about his mother, because her only contact with A. is through his father.
[46] While I think Betty is sincere, she is not impartial. Her affidavit makes several negative observations about Vivi’s parenting. When offered the opportunity to say something positive about Vivi, she did or could not. She clearly feels loyalty to George.
Effie Fiore
[47] Effie Fiore is George’s sister. She lives with her husband and four children in North Carolina.
[48] Effie offered her affidavit to show that George “has served as A’s primary parent for the majority of his upbringing”.
[49] Effie’s affidavit attached “statements from two key individuals who have direct knowledge of Vivi’s family dynamics: Vivi’s niece Katarina and Vivi’s sister-in-law Maria.” These statements are hearsay. Neither person was called as a witness, and no explanation was offered for why not.
[50] I permitted George to make written submissions about why the statements were admissible. He did not offer any reason why they constituted exceptions to the hearsay rule. Instead, he relied on their significance in determining A.’s best interests.
[51] A.’s best interests are a core concern of the court. However, that concern cannot supersede the rules of evidence.
[52] The Applicant sought to have paragraphs 22 through 25 of Effie’s affidavit, and the accompanying materials, struck. I am persuaded that the statements and materials are hearsay and, consequently, will strike them from the record.
[53] Effie says she has been deeply involved with A.’s life since his birth. They are very close. They speak every day that A. is with his father.
[54] Effie described the incident that precipitated the parties’ separation, but she was not present when it happened. She did say that on a phone call the next day, A. told her his mother had said something “about not needing his father.”
[55] Effie says that after the separation A. manifested “concerning behaviours”. He became “unusually secretive and appeared constantly distracted by what he referred to as ‘the machine’”. The machine is something A. thought could read his thoughts and control his truthfulness.
[56] Effie spoke about numerous incidents that I do not find relevant, such as Vivi’s behaviour at a funeral.
[57] Effie spoke about a tobogganing accident discussed further in these reasons, but she was not present when it occurred.
[58] Effie said that Vivi “initiated multiple police interventions that have put A. in compromising situations.” Effie was present for only one of the interventions.
[59] Effie has many thoughts about the OCL investigation. These constitute opinion and are therefore not relevant. She says the clinician, Ms. Moses, failed to consider crucial evidence including a text message Effie sent to her. I address this text message later in these reasons.
[60] Effie described safety concerns with A.’s maternal uncles John Zevgolis (who lives in Greece and was not called as a witness) and George Zevgolis (GZ). There is no evidence that A. has or will have any contact with John Zevgolis. I addressed the allegations against GZ earlier in these reasons.
[61] Effie’s testimony was straightforward and not evasive. However, she tends to speak about events not within her personal knowledge.
[62] I find Effie’s affidavit informative with respect to her observations of A. It is less reliable as a comment on either of the parties’ parenting.
[The remainder of the judgment continues in the same structure, with subheaders for each major section as in the original HTML, and all content verbatim, formatted for clarity and readability. All links are preserved as in the original HTML, and all references to are removed except where part of a case citation. The cited_cases section is split into legislation and case law, with duplicates removed and errors corrected.]
Cited Cases
Legislation
Case Law
Released: May 12, 2025