CITATION: Athanasopoulou v. Liodakis, 2026 ONSC 2238

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-57911-0000

DATE: 2026/04/15

BETWEEN: )

DIMITRA ATHANASOPOULOU )

Applicant)

Respondent)

H. Popovic, Counsel for the Applicant

Respondent is Self-Represented

HEARD: September 24, 25 and 26, October 2, 7 and 17, 2025

1With the capable assistance of DRO Jennifer Gold, Final Minutes of Settlement were reached at the Exit Pretrial Conference held in this matter on September 12, 2025. All parenting and support issues were finalized. All property values were resolved, including the disputed values for the matrimonial home ($455,000) and the Respondent’s vehicles on the date of marriage ($13,925), except the values for the Respondent’s properties in Greece.

2Thus, this trial focuses exclusively on the values of these properties on the date of marriage and the valuation date. Upon reaching a conclusion on these figures, the calculation of net family property and the equalization payment is a straightforward exercise. The valuation issues raised in what remains of this case requiring judicial determination are entirely fact specific. Thus, little jurisprudence is referenced in these Reasons for Judgment.

3As an important note on the issue of scope, Mr. Liodakis took the position that what he described as “post-separation adjustments” had not been addressed in the Final Minutes of Settlement. Among these items he included payment of Ms. Athanasopoulou’s vehicle insurance and charges she made on his RBC VISA Avion credit card. During closing argument, Ms. Popovic argued that these figures had been considered and incorporated into the final settlement and formed part of the rationale for Ms. Athanasopoulou’s waiver of spousal support (retroactive and ongoing). Mr. Liodakis disagreed and indicated that he would submit a document setting out his calculations of what amount he says remains owed to him. That calculation was not provided to the Court by the time of writing of this decision. The document filed on September 12, 2025 as part of the settlement with the intention of delineating the issues for this focused trial reads:

Subject the approval of this court, the parties agree as follows:

The only issue proceeding to trial is the equalization of the parties’ net family property, and in particular, the value of the Greek properties as of the date of marriage and the date of separation.

4I find that, as is specifically indicated in the Final Partial Minutes of Settlement dated September 12, 2025, no post-separation adjustments remain outstanding and there are no other issues to be adjudicated. Having said this, Ms. Athanasopoulou agreed that Mr. Liodakis continued to pay her vehicle insurance and agreed that he should be reimbursed in that regard. I therefore include, in the final reconciliation at the end of this decision, a credit to Mr. Liodakis of $12,908, being $11,010 (as set out at paragraph 108 of Exhibit 9) plus $1,898 (being 13 months at the rate of $146 monthly as determined mathematically from paragraph 105 of Exhibit 9, which covers to December 31, 2025).

Evidence

5The parties were married on September 13, 2009 and separated on May 5, 2018.

6The parties agreed upon the nature, location and description of the three Greek properties: (1) the apartment; (2) the retail store; and (3) the vacant land plot. As all underlying facts were admitted either in the context of the Requests to Admit filed as exhibits or through approval of the content of the descriptions in the experts’ reports, the only evidence required was that of each party’s valuation expert.

7Through two voir dires, I determined that Ms. Athanasopoulou’s expert was not qualified pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada’s unanimous decision in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, [2015] 2 SCR 182. I further determined that the Respondent’s expert was qualified. The trial proceeded on the basis of the evidence of that individual, Dr. Elias Grammatikogiannis.

8In capable submissions, Ms. Popovic for Ms. Athanasopoulou argued that Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ report should be given reduced weight for the following reasons: (1) he was glib about the details of valuation standards set down by European governing bodies; (2) his academic work, while extensive, was not related to property valuations in Rethymno; (3) he did not personally visit the properties and had no localized understanding of Rethymno; (4) he did not take the condition of the properties into account; (5) mathematical projections beyond five years are inherently risky; and (6) he did not produce or retain draft materials and he appeared to have no independent recollection of whether any changes had been made to his opinions over the span of time while they were being prepared.

9Based on my assessment of the evidence, including my assessment of Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ credibility and reliability, I conclude as follows regarding these six points:

(1) Whilst his presentation was at times curt, the witness’ statement that he “didn’t care” about aspects of the standards was made in the context of the difference between the comparable valuation method and the income valuation method. I note here also that the PeopleCert certification body, while not internationally recognized, is undisputedly authentic for Greece.

(2) Although much of his academic focus was on engineering, the witness had been presenting at educational seminars for valuators for more than five years prior to trial. His appraisals had been used in other court proceedings, but he had not previously been required to testify at trial; this speaks more to a difference in evidentiary procedure between Greek and Canadian courts than it does to Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ reliability.

(3) Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ assistant attended and provided him with a presence via videoconference at each site. Dr. Grammatikogiannis attested that he had done approximately 1,000 valuations on the island of Crete. Combined, these two factors fully address any concerns that could arise in the absence of a personal attendance.

(4) Although he did not embark upon a detailed analysis of the condition of the comparatives, Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ calculations include adjustments for: shape/morphology/functionality; position/accessibility/view; year of construction/ area; parking and storage availability; and construction quality/maintenance level. This expert unquestionably took a more mathematical and less holistic approach to the comparable analysis that may be used to in Ontario, however it is not accurate to say that his calculations do not account for the conditions of the properties.

(5) I agree that projections, whether retrospective or otherwise, are risky when data is adjusted to account for spans of time beyond five years. However, the Greek government approves quarterly indices which are regularly used to extrapolate valuations mathematically for taxation and valuation purposes. Further, in the absence of a volume of timely comparables, the expert (and the court) must make do with the evidence available.

(6) It is concerning that Dr. Grammatikogiannis did not appear to have much by way of independent recollection of the specifics of generating this report, nor was he able to confirm whether drafts had been previously prepared or adjusted. The report is dated October 28, 2024. The first instructions for its preparation were received June 21, 2024. While all experts are undoubtedly busy people, Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ obvious irritation at Ms. Popovic’s questioning on these points speaks to his lack of preparation to give evidence at trial. This factor detracts from his reliability to a small extent. As a result, I have incorporated certain adjustments that can be associated with this issue, for example the use of the correct semi-annual retail price index for the retail store valuation (i.e. H1 of 2018 due to the date of separation being May 8, rather than the 2018 annual figure).

10Having regard to all of the evidence, I conclude that Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ methodologies are reliable, although portions of his evidence require relatively minor changes to specific elements of the calculation and, thus, to the ultimate conclusions. I am satisfied that Dr. Grammatikogiannis complied with his professional obligations under the applicable governing ethical mandates and that he further complied with the requirements of Rule 20.2 in acknowledging his duty of non-partisan objectivity and candour to this Court.

11One legal issue regarding evidence arises in this matter: judicial notice. Judicial notice of the facts contained in government publications are “capable of immediate and accurate demonstration by resort to readily accessible sources of indisputable accuracy.” R. v. Find 2001 SCC 32, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863 (at paragraph 48). I have taken judicial notice of the Bank of Canada’s published exchange rates for the dates of marriage and of separation. I have further taken judicial notice of the date of completion of Greece’s austerity obligations as published by the associated financial governing body. For clarity, it is not possible to take judicial notice of opinion evidence,¹ and thus I do not conclude that the economic crisis had ended on a specific date. However, as will become apparent, the trajectory of Greece’s debt crisis and recovery impacts the analysis of the value of the properties in question.

Analysis

12Mr. Liodakis owned all three properties on the date of marriage and on the valuation date.

13Schedules 1 – 4 contain tables setting out the calculation of the value of each asset, based on Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ methodology and adjusted to account for the evidence at trial. The adjustments are negative where a comparative property had a quality that exceeded the state of that same quality for the subject property, and positive where the subject property’s quality surpassed that of the comparative.

14It is Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ expert approach and opinion, based on the best practices of real estate valuators operating with the same professional scope, that:

a. Distinctions on the following characteristics are addressed in 5.0% increments:

i. situation (e.g. shape, functionality and location);

ii. positioning (accessibility and view);

iii. the existence or absence of a parking spot;

iv. the existence or absence of a storage space (external to the unit); and

v. the construction quality or maintenance level of the unit.

b. An adjustment of 0.5% per year is applicable to account for the age of the structure. A negative adjustment is applied if the comparative is newer than the subject property; a positive adjustment is applied if the comparative is older than the subject property.

c. In Greece, unlike in North America, a smaller sized apartment with full functionality is more desirable than a larger one by about 1% per 10 square metres. Thus, if a comparative is smaller than the subject apartment by 30 square metres, its value must be adjusted downward by 3% to align with the marketability of the subject apartment.

d. An adjustment of -5.0% was applied to all comparatives to account for the presumption in Greece that the list or asking price is higher than the ultimate sale price. Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ evidence is that often actual sale prices, which are not available on public record in Greece, are considerably lower than asking prices. Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ evidence was that the same rate should be applied to all comparatives for a given time period because the adjustment expresses the bargaining power of the seller in a given period.

e. As a result of the economic collapse in Greece in 2009 (which continued until 2018), the Bank of Greece (presumably in concert with other government agencies), kept statistics regarding the downward market trends for various assets. The parties agreed to admit into evidence the indices generated from this data. Two were used in this trial: the New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area (applicable to residential real estate); and the Retail Price Index (applicable to retail-use real estate). The New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area uses 2007 as the base line; the Retail Price Index uses 2010 as the base line. No evidence was led regarding that distinction; I infer that Ms. Athanasopoulou concedes the validity and applicability of both indices. The New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area was applied both to the apartment and to the vacant land plot, as the latter was zoned residential; no objection was raised to the use of this index in the valuation of the vacant land plot, and so, again, agreement is inferred.

f. Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ attested that a difference greater than 30% between the values in any given set of comparatives would cause him to be concerned about the applicability of the data. This was not a concern in his valuation analyses for this matter, as the fluctuation was generally around 10%.

g. For clarity, although Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ tables all included the heading “Sale Value (€) or Rental Value (€ / Month), the residential properties (the apartment and the vacant land plot) were valued on a comparative analysis of listed sale prices whilst the retail store was valued on an income basis (using a capitalization rate). Thus “Rental Value (€ / Month)” is applicable to the retail store but not to the residential properties, and vice versa.

Apartment – Date of Marriage

15We start with the date of marriage valuation for the apartment. The date of marriage was September 13, 2009. The valuation table is set out at Schedule 1.

16Although Ms. Athanasopoulou suggested that an additional adjustment should be included to account for the nature of the apartment as “basic” in contrast with the “luxury” styling of the comparatives, such a proposal was not in evidence, and therefore such adjustment was made.

17Dr. Grammatikogiannis was only able to source one comparative from September 2009 (the date of marriage being September 15, 2009); the data for the other three comparatives date to September of 2008. In his report, Dr. Grammatikogiannis applied the adjustment from the New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area (over 5 years old) to address this issue. However he applied the rate to the average of all four comparatives which is mathematically incorrect, as only three of the four comparatives require this adjustment. The calculation has been corrected accordingly such that the comparative from September 2009 is unaffected.

18There are three areas of discrepancy for Comparative #3, and thus I have excluded it from the analysis. It is lined out in Schedule 1. The three discrepancies are: (a) its situation is “Typical” where the subject apartment and the other 3 comparatives are “Advantageous”; (b) no data is available regarding its year of construction; and (c) no data is available regarding its construction quality/maintenance level. They have the following impacts:

h. The evidence at trial was that the apartment had an “advantageous” situation; thus, the downward adjustment applied to it in Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ original conclusion was removed, leaving only Comparative #3 with a -5% adjustment to account for its “typical” situation.

i. The absence of information regarding the year of construction and the construction quality have the potential for significant impact upon the value of that comparative and its utility in the valuation analysis. The other three comparatives were built in the mid-2000s and are all described as having “Very Good” construction quality. Thus, when contrasted with the subject apartment, downward adjustments are applied. The adjustment for year of construction is 0.5% annually; the adjustment for construction quality is 10% (which reflects two 5% increments between the subject apartment as “Moderate” and an intermediary “Good” construction quality).

j. The other three comparatives are reduced in value to account for their superiority in these attributes as contrasted with the subject property. The adjustment is significant, between -23.5% and -25% across the two attributes. The inclusion of the unadjusted Comparative #3, if that comparative was built after 1980, could artificially inflate its associated value, thus driving up the average.

19Dr. Grammatikogiannis attested that an adjustment for marketability should be applied at the rate of 1% per ten metres’ difference between the size of the subject apartment and the size of the comparatives, with smaller properties being more marketable and thus requiring a downward adjustment, and vice versa. For unknown reasons, and although his calculations employed adjustments determined to one decimal place, Dr. Grammatikogiannis did not apply this adjustment consistently. I have done so, such that Comparatives #1 and #2, each being 34 m² larger than the subject apartment, attract an upward adjustment of 3.4% and Comparative #4, being 2 m² larger than the subject apartment, attracts an upward adjustment of 0.2%.

20When these factual findings are incorporated into the analysis, set out mathematically at Schedule 1, the final value of the apartment on the date of marriage is €82,142.77. According to data published by the Bank of Canada, of which I take judicial notice, the exchange rate at noon on September 13, 2009 was CDN$1.6259 to €1. Thus, the value for the equalization calculation is $133,555.93.

Apartment – Date of Separation

21The parties separated on May 5, 2018. The valuation table is set out at Schedule 2. Knowing the details for the apartment, as described above, I will not repeat them here.

22At one time there was a dispute about the date of separation. Consequently, Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ report included a valuation table for 2015. In submissions, counsel for Ms. Athanasopoulou argued that the comparatives in the 2015 table bore a greater resemblance to the apartment than did the comparatives in the 2018 table. I disagree. For example, while the 2015 comparatives each had a parking space, two of them were constructed in 1970 (the subject apartment having been built in 1978). It must be remembered that any adjustment to bring an otherwise unhelpful value into closer alignment with the subject property risks an error in trajectory. The greater the total adjustment, the more probable the compounded error. Simply stated, the three comparatives in Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ valuation table for 2018 were all actively listed for sale as of the date of separation. Proximity in time must rule the day; I have not relied upon the 2015 valuation table in my analysis in any way.

23The apartment had an “advantageous” situation, but all three comparatives are noted as being “typical.” Thus, an adjustment of 5% was added for all three (note that Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ original table omitted this adjustment for Comparative #3).

24As noted above, Dr. Grammatikogiannis did not consistently apply the adjustment to account for the superior marketability of smaller apartments. I have included that adjustment rounded to the nearest tenth.

25None of the three comparatives were located on the second floor of the building (what we would refer to as the third floor in North America, with the ground floor being the first floor). Dr. Grammatikogiannis attested that upper floors were more desirable, particularly as living spaces. He applied an upward adjustment of 7.0% to the comparatives to address this point.

26I have already expressed my concern that insufficient data was available for the construction quality/maintenance level of Comparative #3 in the date of marriage analysis. Here, that data is only available for Comparative #2, which is classified as “Good” and carries an upward adjustment of 5%. The potential impact of the absence of the corresponding data for Comparatives #1 and #3 could be significant. If one is “Poor” (presumably attracting a downward adjustment) and another was “Very Good” (attracting a 10% upward adjustment), the trajectory of the global averaging exercise could be off by thousands of Canadian dollars. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient data to support the reliability of this adjustment, I have removed it from the analysis.

27Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ expert opinion evidence was that, based on his experience, Greek landowners selling in the middle of an economic crisis were willing to take a deeper discount from the list price. He therefore applied a downward adjustment of 15% to the asking price for the comparatives. He distinguished this from the corresponding 5% reduction to the asking price for comparatives for 2009 on the basis that the financial crisis in Greece was at its worst in the Summer of 2018. This seems to be an odd conclusion: the European Stability Mechanism² confirmed that Greece successfully exited the final financial assistance programme on August 20, 2018. The date of separation is May 5, 2018. Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ opinion that 2018 was “the bottom of the hill” for Greece seems counterintuitive, and no further explanation was provided. When giving evidence later regarding the Vacant Land Plot, Dr. Grammatikogiannis said that prices were starting to climb in the second half of 2017. I ascribe little weight to this aspect of his opinion – indeed, it likely falls outside of his scope of expertise as he is in no way qualified as an economist. I therefore substitute a 5% reduction, as was employed in the date of marriage analysis, in place of Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ reduction of 15%.

28I pause here to note that there were mathematical errors in Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ original table. The Total Adjustment for Comparative #1, for example, is indicated in the table as -12.0%, however the components of that sum were: 5.0% + 4.0% - 3.0% + 7.0% - 5.0% - 5.0% = 3.0%. I have corrected the Total Adjustment in my Schedule to account for all components of the analysis as set out herein.

29When all is incorporated into the analysis, set out mathematically at Schedule 2, the final value of the apartment on the date of separation is €55,452.45. According to data published by the Bank of Canada, of which I take judicial notice, the exchange rate on May 5, 2018 was CDN$1.5368 to €1. Thus, the value for the equalization calculation is $85,219.32.

Vacant Land Plot

30The earliest available data for the list price of vacant land plots in Rethymno was 2017. Dr. Grammatikogiannis identified two comparatives dated September 25, 2017 and a third dated November 16, 2017. Thus, the analysis proceeds with a single calculation to generate an estimated value as of the latter half of 2017. A price index is then applied to that estimated value for each of the date of marriage and the date of separation to generate corresponding point-in-time values. However, there is no price index for vacant land. Dr. Grammatikogiannis used the New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area (over 5 years old), the same index as was used in the valuation of the apartment, because the vacant land plot was intended for residential use. This approach was challenged but, in my view, not shaken, in cross-examination.

31Dr. Grammatikogiannis attested that he applied an upward adjustment of 10% to the comparatives because the Vacant Land Plot is located very close to the seaside while none of the comparatives mentioned a similar prime location.

32With respect to marketability, the lower pricing of vacant land means that it is more accessible to purchasers and thus, rather than applying an adjustment of 1% per 10 m², the applicable adjustment is 2% per 50 m² up to a maximum adjustment of 20%. I have corrected the adjustments to one decimal place (rather than rounding to the nearest percentage, as was done in the original report).

33Regarding the propensity of Greek sellers to inflate listing prices, Dr. Grammatikogiannis opined that, with the economy starting to rebound in 2017, sellers became more optimistic. That led to higher asking prices, although not necessarily to higher actual sale prices (the data for which is unavailable, as previously discussed). He therefore applied a downward adjustment of 10% to the list price of each comparative.

34These data and adjustments having been incorporated into the analysis at Schedule 3, and using the exchange rates previously identified, the date of marriage (September 13, 2009) value for the vacant land plot is $135,696.43 and the date of separation (May 5, 2018) value is

$98,541.38.

Retail Store

35According to Dr. Grammatikogiannis, a comparative analysis of commercial property values is subject to a considerable challenge in securing data. In his report, Dr. Grammatikogiannis wrote:

The assessment of yields during the recent period has been and still is a rather challenging exercise in Greece; This is mainly due to the very limited number of recorded transactions, as well as due to the lack of transparency of information. Thus, it is very challenging to have a well substantiated opinion on yields from actual sales of leased properties anywhere in Greece and for any type of investment properties.

36He attested that he was only able to locate two comparatives; too little for accuracy. As a result, he shifted to the income method to estimate a value for the retail store on the basis of the capitalization of its income-earning potential. He used the rental rate set out in the lease agreement for the retail store dating to 2010. Ideally, he would have cross-checked the lease rate against similar commercial properties but, again, data was scarce.

37Dr. Grammatikogiannis attested that capitalization rates for retail spaces run between 6% and 7%; 5% would be considered the absolute low rate; office and industrial spaces have a higher capitalization rate. He used 6.5% in his analysis. The calculation is straightforward: value = annual net operating income ÷ capitalization rate.

38One of the glaring problems in this matter is the absence of clarity on net operating income. While we have the rent sought in a lease agreement that may or may not have ever been binding on any tenant (the evidence on this point was vague and contradictory), we don’t know what expenses would be associated with the maintenance and upkeep of the space. Unfortunately, our best evidence is limited to the rent amount in the lease agreement, however arguably that inflates the valuation equally for the date of marriage deduction and the date of separation inclusion in the net family property analysis. Really, the difference attributed to the value of the asset arises from the Greek government’s Retail Price Index which documents the rise and fall of retail property values starting in 2006 (about three years before the economic collapse).

39The value as of November 2010 is therefore estimated at €66,461.54 (being €360/monthly x 12 months ÷ 6.5%). To adjust it across time, we must multiply by the Retail Price Index factor for each of the dates of marriage and of separation (the valuation goal date) and divide by the corresponding factor for the date of the data, namely the second half of 2010. Note that, unlike the New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area which tracked indices by quarter, the Retail Price Index tracked data for the first half (H1) and second half (H2) of each year. Therefore:

k. 66,461.54 x 101.6³ ÷ 98.4 = 68,622.89 (date of marriage)

l. 66,461.54 x 76.9 ÷ 98.4 = 51,939.96 (date of separation)

40Interestingly, the two comparatives which dated to 2011 generated a “rough calculation” of about €62,600. While this figure is not determinative in any way, it does serve to confirm that the valuation estimates are likely reasonable, particularly considering the economic crash in the interim.

41Using the exchange rates already addressed above, the value of the retail store on the date of marriage was $111,573.96 and it was $79,898.17 on the date of separation.

Calculation of Net Family Property

42As noted at the outset of these reasons, the parties agreed upon all values except those for the three Greek properties discussed herein. I find that the properties had the following values:

m. apartment – date of marriage = $133,555.93

n. apartment – date of separation = $85,219.32

o. vacant land plot – date of marriage = $135,696.43

p. vacant land plot – date of separation = $98,541.38

q. retail store – date of marriage = $111,573.96

r. retail store – date of separation = $79,898.17

43The otherwise-agreed Net Family Property calculation which is attached as Schedule 4 hereto shows the sum of $265,180.93 owing by Mr. Liodakis to Ms. Athanasopoulou for all items other than the Greek properties.

44The equalization of the Greek properties is the date of separation value less the date of marriage value, divided by two, calculated as follows:

s. apartment: $85,219.32 - $133,555.93 ÷ 2

= ($48,336.61) ÷ 2

= ($24,168.30)

t. vacant land plot: $98,541.38 - $111,573.96 ÷ 2

= ($13,032.58) ÷ 2

= ($6,516.29)

u. retail store: $79,898.17 - $111,573.96 ÷ 2

= ($31,675.79) ÷ 2

= ($15,837.90)

45The total deduction to account for the negative impact of the reduction in the Greek properties’ values is therefore ($46,522.49).

46Consequently, Mr. Liodakis owes an equalization payment to Ms. Athanasopoulou of

$218,658.44.

Pre-Judgment Interest

47Pre-Judgment Interest is presumptively payable on an equalization payment but is subject to the discretion of the trial judge. The purpose of pre-judgment interest is to compensate a judgment creditor for the loss of investment potential on funds owing as of the date of the claim.

48Section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act governs pre-judgment interest, and reads as follows:

128 (1) A person who is entitled to an order for the payment of money is entitled to claim and have included in the order an award of interest thereon at the prejudgment interest rate, calculated from the date the cause of action arose to the date of the order.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the rate of interest on damages for non- pecuniary loss in an action for personal injury shall be the rate determined by the rules of court made under clause 66 (2) (w).

(3) If the order includes an amount for past pecuniary loss, the interest calculated under subsection (1) shall be calculated on the total past pecuniary loss at the end of each six-month period and at the date of the order.

(4) Interest shall not be awarded under subsection (1),

(a) on exemplary or punitive damages;

(b) on interest accruing under this section;

(d) on that part of the order that represents pecuniary loss arising after the date of the order and that is identified by a finding of the court;

(e) with respect to the amount of any advance payment that has been made towards settlement of the claim, for the period after the advance payment has been made;

(f) where the order is made on consent, except by consent of the debtor; or

(g) where interest is payable by a right other than under this section.

49In Muraven v. Muraven, 2021 ONCA 657, the Court of Appeal summarized the law as follows:

16As a general rule, a payor spouse is required to pay prejudgment interest on an equalization payment owing to the payee spouse. However, the applicable legislation makes clear that the granting or denial of prejudgment interest is discretionary: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 130. There are exceptions to the general rule. Exceptions arise “where, for various reasons, the payor spouse cannot realize on the asset giving rise to the equalization payment until after the trial, does not have the use of it prior to trial, the asset generates no income, and the payor spouse has not delayed the case being brought to trial”: Burgess v. Burgess (1995), 24 O.R. (3d) 547 (C.A.), at p. 552; Fielding v. Fielding, 2015 ONCA 901, 129 O.R. (3d) 65, at para. 43.

50In Muravin, the equalization creditor remained in the matrimonial home from separation until trial, which was the primary source of the equity available to satisfy the equalization payment. The equalization creditor did not seek to have the home sold and benefitted from the ability to reside there while the equalization debtor lived elsewhere. The reasons at trial were not published, and the Court of Appeal noted that the Trial Judge did not specifically address the decision not to award pre-judgment interest. The Court of Appeal held that the Trial Judge’s finding that the equalization creditor had already benefitted from the ability to reside in the matrimonial home⁴ was sufficient to support the exercise of the Trial Judge’s discretion in declining to award pre- judgment interest. Thus, presumably, the equalization creditor did not need to be compensated for the theoretical investment loss as she continued to benefit from the fact that the tangible asset – the home – was not converted into money immediately to pay out the debt.

51We see the corresponding principle borne out in Barnett v. Lindsay, 2017 ONSC 3075. In that case involving unmarried spouses, the debtor spouse wanted to retain the family residence but refused to refinance it to pay the creditor spouse prior to trial. Justice Jarvis wrote:

29In this case the mother claims PJI [Pre-Judgment Interest] of $3,293.39 most of which relates to the property award. This calculation was based on the total value of that award calculated from August 17, 2014, then adjusted to take into account the $60,000 paid to her pursuant to the Order of Kaufman J. made April 8, 2015.

30The father contends that no PJI should be awarded because he had to borrow funds to advance the mother $60,000 in May 2015, the mother benefited from the properties’ appreciation after the parties separated and that he will need to further refinance his residence to pay anything further ordered.

31Complicating this analysis is the fact that there is no evidence as to what the properties were worth when the parties finally separated in June 2014. They agreed at trial that the combined property value as of late 2015 was $973,555.

32It seems likely that there was some appreciation in value after the parties separated but the father cannot raise as a shield to the mother’s claim his choice of retaining the properties or having to refinance them to advance her funds or to pay the Judgment or any consequent costs award. The mother should not be penalized in subsidizing the father’s decision to retain the family residence. He could have at any time taken steps to try to sell the properties: he also disobeyed the Order of Kaufman J. dated April 8, 2015 in mortgaging the vacant lot to enable him to pay the $60,000 to the mother for her title transfer to him of their residence.

33This court has broad, but principled, discretion to award an amount for PJI which it considers just. In my view, it would be fair and reasonable to award the mother $2,500 for PJI relating to the property and support issues.

52Thus, the equalization debtor who sits on the asset, with no benefit to the creditor of the delayed liquidation, will find him- or herself paying pre-judgment interest. This appears to be the case even where an advance has been made against equalization and the actual equalization calculation regarding of the primary asset is not known until trial.

53Ms. Athanasopoulou seeks pre-judgment interest on the equalization payment of $218,658.44 owed to her, effective as of the date of separation (May 5, 2018). Mr. Liodakis opposes this request, primarily on the grounds that the equalization payment could not be known until the value (loss) attributable to the Greek properties was determined. Each party accuses the other of delaying this litigation in various ways.

54If Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ evidence had been accepted in its entirety, the Greek properties would have been valued at 258,000€ on the date of marriage and 161,000€ on the date of separation. Those values are equivalent to $419,482.20 on the date of marriage (CDN$1.6259 to €1) and $247,424.80 on the date of separation (CDN$1.5368 to €1). The impact would have been a reduction of ($172,057.40) to Mr. Liodakis’ net family property, which was otherwise calculated as $265,180.93. Thus, had Dr. Grammatikogiannis’ analysis carried the day, Mr. Liodakis would have owed an equalization payment of $93,123.53.

55Looking at factors set out in Muravin:

a. Mr. Liodakis chose not to realize on the equity in the Greek properties to fund the equalization payment. He nonetheless had other liquid assets available on the date of separation, namely a TFSA of $10,565.97 and an RRSP of $91,863.98 (which would have had a net-of-tax value of perhaps $70,000). The combined available amount might have been roughly $80,000 in cash form, which could have covered most of the equalization payment (as calculated via his expert).

b. Mr. Liodakis had use of all of these assets immediately at separation and since; the Greek properties and the liquid assets were all in his sole name. Presumably, if the liquid assets had been transferred, some mechanism could have been engaged to satisfy the modest balance of roughly $13,000. No evidence was led either way on this point.

c. No current evidence was available regarding any income being generated by any of the assets in Mr. Liodakis’ name alone, however the point is immaterial as he could have accessed the equity without restriction.

d. Each party alleged that the other delayed the proceeding. I make no finding in that regard.

56Having regard to all of the foregoing, I exercise my principled discretion to award pre- judgment interest on Mr. Liodakis’ best-case scenario equalization payment of $93,123.53. The applicable rate for the date of separation was 1.3%, which translates to $3.32 per diem. 2,892 days have passed between May 15, 2018 and April 15, 2026. Thus, pre-judgment interest is fixed at

$9,601.44.

Final Order to issue

57A Final Order shall issue as follows:

The Respondent, Nikolaos Liodakis, owes to the Applicant, Dimitra Athanasopoulou, the sum of $218,658.44 representing the equalization of their net family property.
From that amount, the Respondent, Nikolaos Liodakis, shall be entitled to deduct $12,908.00 to account for the payment of insurance expenses for the Applicant, Dimitra Athanasopoulou.
The net sum of $205,750.44 is thus payable by the Respondent, Nikolaos Liodakis, to the Applicant, Dimitra Athanasopoulou.
To that amount, the Applicant, Dimitra Athanasopoulou, shall be entitled to add pre- judgment interest fixed in the amount of $9,601.44 as at April 15, 2026.
There shall be no other adjustments on account of post-separation costs or expenses.
The amount of $215,351.88 shall be paid by the Respondent, Nikolaos Liodakis, to the Applicant, Dimitra Athanasopoulou, within thirty (30) days, with interest to accrue commencing on the 31^st day thereafter at the post-judgment rate of 4.0 % per year.
Costs submissions shall be served and filed in accordance with Rule 24(19) of the Family Law Rules. Submissions are to be directed to my judicial assistant at mona.goodwin@ontario.ca and Kitchener.SCJJA@ontario.ca. It is imperative that the covering emails indicate in the subject line: (1) the court file number; (2) that these are cost submissions; and (3) that they are being sent to the attention of Justice Breithaupt Smith. The parties shall further ensure their cost submissions are filed with the Court and on CaseCenter.
Approval of the draft Final Order by self-represented parties is waived.

J. Breithaupt Smith J.

Released: April 15, 2026

Comparative Sale Data	Examined	Comparative #1	Comparative #2	~~Comparative #3~~	Comparative #4
Property Type	Apartment	Apartment	Apartment	~~Apartment~~	Apartment
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~0.0%~~	0.0%
Area / Location Name	Rethymno Kallithea	Rethymno Kallithea	Rethymno Kallithea	~~Rethymno Kallithea~~	Rethymno Kallithea
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~0.0%~~	0.0%
Shape - Morphology - Functionality / Prime Location (Situation)	Advantageous	Advantageous	Advantageous	~~Typical~~	Advantageous
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~-5.0%~~	0.0%
Position - Accessibility / View	No	No	No	No	No
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~0.0%~~	0.0%
Year of Construction	1978	2006	2005	~~UNKNOWN~~	2008
Adjustment		-14.0%	-13.5%	~~0.0%~~	-15.0%
Area (m²)	51.08	85.00	85.00	~~90.00~~	53.00
Adjustment		3.4%	3.4%	~~4.0%~~	0.2%
Floor	Second	Second	Second	~~Second~~	Second
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~0.0%~~	0.0%
Parking Space / Type	No	No	No	No	No
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~0.0%~~	0.0%
Storage Space	No	No	No	No	No
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	~~0.0%~~	0.0%
Construction Quality / Maintenance Level	Moderate	Very Good	Very Good	~~UNKNOWN~~	Very Good
Adjustment		-10.0%	-10.0%	~~0.0%~~	-10.0%
Value Classification		Asking Price	Asking Price	~~Asking Price~~	Asking Price
Adjustment		-5.0%	-5.0%	~~-5.0%~~	-5.0%
List Price Value (€)¹		200,000	190,000	~~162,000~~	120,000
List Price Value (€ / m²)¹		2,352.94	2,235.29	~~1,800.00~~	2,264.15
Total Adjustment²		-25.6%	-25.1%	~~-1.0%~~	-29.8%
Adjusted Total Value (€)		1,750.59	1,674.23	~~1,782.00~~	1,589.43
Month / Year (of data)		14/9/2008	28/9/2008	~~19/9/2008~~	21/9/2009
Month / Year of data adjustment per "New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area" for Q3 2009		Adjusted Total Value x 97.1 ÷ 102.8 = 1,653.52	Adjusted Total Value x 97.1 ÷ 102.8 = 1,581.40	~~Adjusted Total Value x 97.1 ÷ 102.8~~	N/A
Adjusted Values for Average Analysis		1,653.52	1,581.40		1,589.43
Final Price (Average) (€ / m²)	1,608.12
Final Value (€ / m² x 51.08)	82,142.77
Final Value (CDN$)	$133,994.92

¹ The undisputed evidence is that this data represents the asking price, rather than actual sale values, as that data is not reliably available. Consequently, although Dr. Grammatikogianns’ original charts used the term “Sale Value,” I have changed the term to “List Price Value.”

² Decrease (negative percentage) indicates adjustment due to superiority of comparative; increase (positive percentage) indicates adjustment due to inferiority of comparative. Total adjustment is sum of all adjustment factors set out in table.

Comparative Sale Data	Examined	Comparative #1	Comparative #2	Comparative #3
Property Type	Apartment	Apartment	Apartment	Apartment
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Area / Location Name	Rethymno Kallithea	Rethymno Kallithea	Rethymno Kallithea	Rethymno Kallithea
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Shape - Morphology - Functionality / Prime Location (Situation)	Advantageous	Typical	Typical	Typical
Adjustment		5.0%	5.0%	5.0%
Position - Accessibility / View	No	No	No	No
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Year of Construction	1978	1970	1970	2010
Adjustment		4.0%	4.0%	-16.0%
Area (m²)	51.08	20.00	57.00	47.00
Adjustment		-3.0%	0.6%	-0.4%
Floor	Second	Ground	First	Ground
Adjustment		7.0%	7.0%	7.0%
Parking Space / Type	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Adjustment		-5.0%	-5.0%	-5.0%
Storage Space	No	No	No	No
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Construction Quality / Maintenance Level	Moderate	~~UNKNOWN~~	~~Good~~	~~UNKNOWN~~
Adjustment		~~0.0%~~	~~5.0%~~	~~0.0%~~
Value Classification		Asking Price	Asking Price	Asking Price
Adjustment		-5.0%	-5.0%	-5.0%
List Price Value (€)¹		22,000	60,000	55,000
List Price Value (€ / m²)¹		1,100.00	1,052.63	1,170.21
Total Adjustment²		3.0%	6.6%	-14.4%
Adjusted Total Value (€)		1,133.00	1,122.10	1,001.70
Month / Year (of data)		05/05/2018	05/05/2018	05/05/2018
Month / Year of data adjustment per "New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area" for Q3 2009		N/A	N/A	N/A
Adjusted Values for Average Analysis		1,133.00	1,122.10	1,001.70
Final Price (Average) (€ / m²)	1,085.60
Final Value (€ / m² x 51.08)	55,452.45
Final Value (CDN$)	85,219.32

Comparative Sale Data	Examined	Comparative #1	Comparative #2	Comparative #3
Property Type	Plot	Plot	Plot	Plot
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Area / Location Name	Rethymno	Rethymno	Rethymno	Rethymno
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Shape - Morphology - Functionality / Prime Location (Situation)	Advantageous	Typical	Typical	Typical
Adjustment		10.0%	10.0%	10.0%
Position - Accessibility / View	No	No	No	No
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Year of Construction	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Area (m²)	553.15	1,000	1,030	808
Adjustment		17.9%	19.1%	10.2%
Floor	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Parking Space / Type	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Storage Space	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Construction Quality / Maintenance Level	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Adjustment		0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Value Classification		Asking Price	Asking Price	Asking Price
Adjustment		-10.0%	-10.0%	-10.0%
List Price Value (€)¹		100,000	100,000	80,000
List Price Value (€ / m²)¹		100.00	97.09	99.01
Total Adjustment²		17.9%	19.1%	10.2%
Adjusted Total Value (€)		117.90	115.63	109.11
Month / Year (of data)		16/11/2017 (Q3 2017)	25/09/2017 (Q2 2017)	25/09/2017 (Q2 2017)
DATE OF MARRIAGE
Month / Year of data adjustment per "New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area" for Q3 2009 Date of Marriage		Adjusted Total Value x 97.1 ÷ 60.4 = 189.54	Adjusted Total Value x 97.1 ÷ 60.1 = 186.82	Adjusted Total Value x 97.1 ÷ 60.1 = 176.28
Final Price (Average) (€ / m²) Date of Marriage	150.88
Final Value (€ / m² x 553.15) Date of Marriage	83,459.27
Final Value (CDN$) as at Date of Marriage (September 13, 2009)	135,696.43
DATE OF SEPARATION
Month / Year of data adjustment per "New Index of Apartment Prices by Geographical Area" for Q2 2018 Date of Separation		Adjusted Total Value x 61.1 ÷ 60.4 = 119.27	Adjusted Total Value x 61.1 ÷ 60.1 = 117.55	Adjusted Total Value x 61.1 ÷ 60.1 = 110.93
Final Price (Average) (€ / m²) Date of Marriage	115.92
Final Value (€ / m² x 553.15) Date of Marriage	64,121.15
Final Value (CDN$) as at Date of Separation (May 5, 2018)	98,541.38

Schedule 4 to the Reasons for Judgment of Breithaupt Smith J.

Athanasopoulou v. Liodakis

ONTARIO Superior Court of Justice (Name of Court) at 85 Frederick Street, Kitchener ON N2H 0A7 Form 13B: Net Family (Court Office Address) Property Statement

Applicant(s)

Respondent(s)

Full legal name & address for service — street & number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers and e-mail address (if any).

Lawyer’s name & address — street & number, municipality, postal code, telephone & fax numbers and e-mail address (if any).

Nikolaos Liodakis 590 Royal Beech Drive Waterloo, ON N2T 2K3 Tel: (519) 729-6443 nliodakis@yahoo.com

Self Represented

My name is (full legal name) Nikolaos Liodakis

The valuation date for the following material is (date) May 5, 2018

The date of marriage is (date) September 13, 2009

(Complete the tables by filling in the columns for both parties, showing your assets, debts, etc. and those of your spouse)

Table 1: Value Of Assets Owned on Valuation Date (List in the order of the categories in the financial statement)

PART 4(a): LAND

Nature & Type of Ownership (State percentage interest)	Address of Property	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Matrimonial Home – 100% ownership	590 Royal Beech Drive Waterloo, ON		$455,000.00
Greek Property – 100% ownership	Apartment		$71,300.00
46,000 € @ $1.55 CDN
Greek Property – 100% ownership	Retail Space		$79,050.00
51,000 € @ $1.55 CDN
Greek Property – 100% ownership	Vacant Land		$99,200.00
64,000 € @1.55 CDN
15. Totals: Value of Land		$0.00	$704,550.00

PART 4(b): GENERAL HOUSEHOLD ITEMS AND VEHICLES

Item	Description	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Household goods & furniture			$2,000.00
Cars, boats, vehicles	2002 Peugeot		$1,000.00
	2011 Mitsubishi	$7,000.00
Jewellery, art, electronics, tools, sports & hobby, equipment
Other special items
16. Totals: Value of General Household Items and Vehicles		$7,000.00	$3,000.00

PART 4(c): BANK ACCOUNTS AND SAVINGS, SECURITIES AND PENSIONS

Category (Savings, Checking, GIC, RRSP, Pensions, etc.)	Institution	Account Number	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Joint Chequings	RBC (sole account on DOM but joint on DOS)	1656	$9,005.42	$9,005.42
Joint Savings	RBC	9524	$50,540.38	$50,540.38
TFSA	RBC	5953	$10,565.00
Joint Account with mother	National Bank of Greece			$468.18
Pension	Wilfred Laurier University			$275,223.75
RRSP	RBC			$91,863.98
TFSA	RBC	0735		$10,565.97
17. Totals: Value of Accounts And Savings			$70,110.80	$437,667.68

PART 4(d): LIFE AND DISABILITY INSURANCE

Company, Type & Policy No.	Owner	Beneficiary	Face Amount ($)	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
18. Totals: Cash Surrender Value Of Insurance Policies				$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(e): BUSINESS INTERESTS

Name of Firm or Company	Interests	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
19. Totals: Value Of Business Interests		$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(f): MONEY OWED TO YOU

Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
20. Totals: Money Owed To You	$0.00	$0.00

PART 4(g): OTHER PROPERTY

Category	Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
21. Totals: Value Of Other Property		$0.00	$0.00

22. VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON THE VALUATION DATE, (TOTAL 1) (Add: items [15] to [21])	$77,110.80	$1,145,217.68

Table 2: Value Of Debts and Liabilities on Valuation Date

PART 5: DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES

Category	Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Credit Card	RBC Avion (3823)	$2,689.34	$2,689.34
Notional Tax	Laurier Pension @21%		$57,796.99
Notional Tax	RRSP $91,863.98 @21%		$19,291.44
23. Totals: Debts And Other Liabilities, (TOTAL 2)		$2,689.34	$79,777.77

Table 3: Net value on date of marriage of property (other than a matrimonial home) after deducting debts or other liabilities on date of marriage (other than those relating directly to the purchase or significant improvement of a matrimonial home)

PART 6: PROPERTY, DEBTS AND OTHER LIABILITIES ON DATE OF MARRIAGE

Category and Details	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Land (exclude matrimonial home owned on the date of marriage, unless sold before date of separation).
Greek Apartment - 67,500€ @$1.57 CDN		$135,020.00
Greek Retail Unit – 83,950 € @$1.57 CDN		$111,470.00
Greek Vacant Lot – 38,900 € @ $1.57		$158,570.00
General household items and vehicles		$5,000.00
2002 Peugeot		$6,425.00
1997 Acura EL		$7,500.00
Bank accounts and savings
RBC Chequing Account (1656) – sole on DOM		$30,138.94
Joint Greek Bank Account		$75.36
RRSP		$36,654.80
3(a) TOTAL OF PROPERTY ITEMS	$0.00	$490,854.10
Debts and other liabilities (Specify)
Notional Tax on RRSP		$7,697.51
Parental Loan		$22,500.00
3(b) TOTAL OF DEBTS ITEMS	$0.00	$30,197.51
24. NET VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED ON DATE OF MARRIAGE, (NET TOTAL 3)	$0.00	$460,656.59

Table 4: PART 7: VALUE OF PROPERTY EXCLUDED UNDER SUBS. 4(2) OF “FAMILY LAW ACT”

Item	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
Gift or inheritance from third person
Income from property expressly excluded by donor/testator
Damages and settlements for personal injuries, etc.
Life insurance proceeds
Traced property
Excluded property by spousal agreement
Other Excluded Property
26. TOTALS: VALUE OF EXCLUDED PROPERTY, (TOTAL 4)	$0.00	$0.00

	APPLICANT	RESPONDENT
TOTAL 2: Debts and Other Liabilities (item 23)	$2,689.34	$79,777.77
TOTAL 3: Value of Property Owned on the Date of Marriage (item 24)	$0.00	$460,656.59
TOTAL 4: Value of Excluded Property (item 26)	$0.00	$0.00
TOTAL 5: (TOTAL 2 + TOTAL 3 + TOTAL 4)	$2,689.34	$540,434.36
TOTAL 1: Value of Property Owned on Valuation Date (item 22)	$77,110.80	$1,145,217.68
TOTAL 5: (from above)	$2,689.34	$540,434.36
TOTAL 6: NET FAMILY PROPERTY (Subtract: TOTAL 1 minus TOTAL 5)	$74,421.46	$604,783.32

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

Applicant Pays Respondent	Respondent Pays Applicant
$0.00	$265,180.93

Nikolaos Liodakis ^{Oct 14, 2025}

Nikolaos Liodakis (Oct 14, 2025 12:49:01 EDT)

Signature Date of signature

CITATION: Athanasopoulou v. Liodakis, 2026 ONSC 2238

COURT FILE NO.: FC-22-57911-0000

DATE: 2026/04/15

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN:

DIMITRA ATHANASOPOULOU

– and –

NIKOLAOS LIODAKIS

Applicant

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

J. Breithaupt Smith J.

Released: April 15, 2026