HATZIS v. HATZIS: High-Conflict Parenting -> Pragmatic Judgement

The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Hatzis v. Hatzis, 2025 ONSC 2814, offers valuable insights for family law practitioners navigating high-conflict parenting disputes. Justice Mathen’s comprehensive judgment demonstrates how courts balance competing interests when parents cannot effectively co-parent, while maintaining the fundamental principle that children benefit from meaningful relationships with both parents.

The High-Conflict Context

The case involved Vivi and George Hatzis, divorced parents of an eight-year-old son, A, whose relationship Justice Mathen characterized as having a “corrosive dynamic.” The parties had made multiple complaints to Children’s Aid Society (CAS) and police, including allegations of physical and sexual abuse—none of which were substantiated except for a finding that the child was at risk of “emotional harm.”

This backdrop of mutual accusations, failed communication, and institutional interventions created the perfect storm for what the court described as a “high conflict” divorce where both parents “inappropriately draw A. into their conflict.”

The OCL Report: When Expert Recommendations Meet Judicial Scrutiny

A central issue was the court’s treatment of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL) report prepared by a clinician. The clinician conducted a thorough investigation including six interviews with the father, five with the mother, two with the child, observation visits with each parent, interviews with collateral witnesses, and review of multiple CAS and police reports. The report recommended reducing George’s parenting time from the current 2-2-5-5 schedule by two overnights per week, citing concerns about the child being drawn into parental conflict and developing negative attitudes toward his mother.

While acknowledging that OCL reports “merit serious consideration” and finding the clinician’s.’s process credible, Justice Mathen ultimately rejected the recommendation. The court’s analysis provides important guidance on when judges may depart from expert recommendations despite their thoroughness:

Insufficient Consideration of Impact: The court found that the clinician’s “repeatedly described[the recommended change] as a ‘minor adjustment'” when the actual change represented a significant shift from 7/14 to 5/14 overnights—a reduction the court viewed as more substantial than characterized.

Lack of Comprehensive Solution: Justice Mathen noted that because the clinician felt unqualified to assess parental alienation, she “did not propose a detailed plan for how to repair the mother’s and A.’s relationship.” The court questioned whether simply reducing parenting time would address the underlying issues.

Alternative Explanations: The judgment identified other potential sources of the child’s negative attitudes, particularly the “extremely fraught issue of FaceTime calls” that created daily conflict between the parents.

Addressing Daily Contact Conflicts

A practically significant aspect of the decision was the court’s restructuring of the FaceTime protocol. The existing order mandated daily 10-minute video calls between the child and the non-residential parent—a common feature in many separation agreements that had become, in this case, “an extraordinary proportion of the parties’ acrimony.”

Justice Mathen’s solution was to eliminate daily calls entirely, instead allowing one 20-minute FaceTime call only on the third day of extended parenting periods (five-day stretches), with no calls during two-day periods. While similar approaches have been used in other high-conflict cases, the detailed reasoning here provides helpful precedent.

This approach recognizes several important principles:

• Parenting Time Integrity: Daily intrusions from the other parent can “poison the dynamic” and interfere with the residential parent’s relationship with the child
• Age-Appropriate Expectations: At eight years old, the child no longer needs daily contact with the absent parent
• Conflict Reduction: Fewer mandated interactions mean fewer opportunities for disputes

Divided Decision-Making: A Practical Response

Faced with parents who “cannot effectively co-parent,” Justice Mathen ordered divided decision-making responsibility rather than joint or sole decision-making. This approach, while not uncommon in high-conflict cases (see Kaplanis v. Kaplanis, 2005 CanLII 1625), was carefully tailored to the specific circumstances and assigns:

• Mother : Health and education decisions (including whether the child gets a personal electronic device until age 15)
• Father: Extracurricular activities and religious upbringing

This division reflects the court’s assessment of each parent’s strengths and concerns. Notably, the court expressed worry about the father’s apparent distrust of healthcare providers, particularly his reluctance to consent to therapy recommended by the OCL.

Communication Protocols for High-Conflict Cases

The judgment provides a practical template for managing communication in high-conflict situations:

Mandatory Written Communication: All communication must occur through third-party applications (2 Houses App if parties cannot agree on alternatives)

Professional Standards: Communications must be limited to logistics and major decisions, with parties treating interactions “as though they are taking place between professional colleagues”

Boundary Setting: The court specifically cautioned the father about his communication style, noting his tendency to “not maintain healthy boundaries” and send “dozens of messages” that could be “excessive and, sometimes, condescending”

Travel Provisions: Reducing Motion Practice

The court implemented liberal travel provisions allowing each parent to travel with the child for up to seven days without the other’s consent, requiring only 30 days’ notice and an itinerary. This approach directly addresses a significant source of conflict—the parties had previously litigated emergency motions over travel consent, withthe father once demanding “detailed information including a notarized daily itinerary and affidavits from any travel companions.”

Therapeutic Intervention as Mandatory Relief

Recognizing the child’s position in the crossfire of parental conflict, Justice Mathen ordered therapy registration within four weeks, implementing the OCL’s recommendation despite the father’s apparent reluctance. This mandatory therapeutic intervention acknowledges that high-conflict divorces require professional support for children caught between warring parents.

Evidence Management in High-Conflict Cases

The decision also provides guidance on evidence management, particularly Justice Mathen’s refusal to view the “myriad videos the parties have made during their divorce and legal proceedings.” This judicial restraint reflects practical concerns about the probative value of such evidence versus the risk of inflaming an already volatile situation.

Similarly, the striking of hearsay evidence from the father’s sister’s affidavit reinforces that even in child-focused proceedings, evidentiary rules must be respected.

Practice Points for Family Lawyers

1. Thorough OCL Reports Don’t Guarantee Acceptance: Even comprehensive OCL investigations may be rejected if the proposed solutions seem inadequate, or the court identifies alternative explanations for the child’s difficulties.

2. Daily Contact Protocols Require Careful Consideration: Traditional daily call provisions should be scrutinized in high-conflict cases, with alternatives that reduce conflict opportunities while maintaining meaningful contact.

3. Divided Decision-Making Offers Practical Solutions: When parents cannot collaborate, but both are capable, dividing decision-making authority by subject matter can serve children’s interests while reducing conflict.

4. Communication Technology as Conflict Management: Mandatory co-parenting apps with professional communication standards can help contain disputes but must be coupled with clear behavioral expectations.

5. Liberal Travel Provisions Reduce Litigation: Detailed, permissive travel rules can eliminate significant sources of ongoing motion practice in high-conflict files.

6. Evidence Curation Matters: In high-conflict cases, practitioners should be selective about evidence presentation, focusing on probative value rather than volume.

Broader Implications for Practice

Hatzis v. Hatzis demonstrates judicial willingness to craft bespoke solutions for high-conflict families rather than applying standard templates. The decision emphasizes:

• Conflict Reduction Over Cooperation: Acknowledging that some parents cannot work together and designing systems that minimize required interaction
• Child-Centered Pragmatism: Focusing on what works for the specific child rather than theoretical ideals about co-parenting
• Graduated Intervention: Starting with structural changes (communication protocols, contact schedules) before considering more drastic measures

For practitioners, the case reinforces that effective advocacy in high-conflict cases requires understanding the specific dynamics between parties and proposing solutions that work within those constraints rather than hoping to change them.

The court’s observation that “while the parties are encouraged to develop a civil relationship, it is acknowledged that this will take time” reflects a mature understanding that family law solutions must sometimes manage dysfunction rather than cure it.

Let’s continue to elevate the practice of family law in Ontario!

Connect with us on LinkedIn.

Legal Disclaimer: See Privacy Policy

Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice. Consult with a qualified family law attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. Goldhart Mediation & Arbitration is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information presented in this blog.