Murray N. Maltz

The applicant sought summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached at mediation with her common-law partner.

The respondent denied a binding agreement, claiming lack of understanding, duress, and unconscionability.

The court found a binding agreement based on objective evidence, counsel's ostensible authority, and the parties' post-mediation conduct, dismissing the respondent's claims of duress and unconscionability.

The settlement, which included the sale of a farm and division of proceeds, was enforced.

The applicant wife and respondent husband, both Canadian and Iranian citizens, separated in Ontario.

The husband sought to recognize and enforce an Iranian divorce judgment, arguing it dealt with property and support.

The wife opposed this, arguing she did not attorn to Iranian jurisdiction and that there was no real and substantial connection to Iran for the divorce.

She also sought a declaration that the Mehr (marriage portion) enforcement did not fully determine property rights in Canada.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding no attornment or real and substantial connection to Iran for the divorce.

The wife's motion for declaratory relief regarding the Mehr was also dismissed, as the court found it was not appropriate for summary judgment and should be determined at trial.

The applicant wife and respondent husband brought cross-motions for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and commercial property.

The applicant sought $1.5 million and an order that the balance remain in trust pending final equalization, while the respondent sought an equal distribution of the funds.

The court ordered $1.5 million released to the applicant, $1.25 million held in trust to secure potential equalization payments, and the balance released to the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce an original promissory note allegedly evidencing a $500,000 loan from his late father.

The wife sought costs following her success on two motions, one brought by the husband for disclosure and one brought by the wife for temporary support and release of funds.

The court found the wife was presumptively entitled to costs and had met the criteria under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for one of her offers to settle.

The court also found the husband acted in bad faith by failing to comply with the order to release funds forthwith.

The court awarded the wife costs in the amount of $22,906.79, to be paid from the husband's share of the net proceeds of sale held in trust.

The applicant commenced an action for a constructive trust over a property owned by his deceased common-law spouse.

The respondent estate brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing it was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act.

The applicant brought a cross-motion to add the estate beneficiaries as parties.

The court dismissed the estate's motion, finding that a claim for a constructive trust over real property is governed by the 10-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act, not the Trustee Act.

The court also dismissed the applicant's motion to add the beneficiaries, finding it unnecessary at this stage.

The defendants in a nuisance action brought a motion for leave to bring a motion and for an order to inspect the plaintiffs' property under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The parties were involved in two separate actions regarding a dispute over encroaching earth and water.

The defendants had previously been ordered to seek leave before bringing further motions due to past intransigence.

The court granted leave, finding the defendants had not been frivolous or vexatious in recent years.

The court also granted the request for inspection, allowing the defendants' experts to visually inspect the plaintiffs' property, as it was necessary for the proper determination of the issues and would not cause prejudice.

Costs of $23,000 were awarded to the moving parties.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) brought a motion to remove Murray Maltz as counsel for the defendants Bouzios and Nikolaidis, alleging that Maltz would be a necessary witness at trial due to funds from alleged frauds passing through his trust account.

RBC sought Maltz's evidence to trace the funds.

The court applied the test for removing counsel who may be a witness, considering factors such as the stage of proceedings, likelihood of the lawyer being called, good faith of the moving party, significance of evidence, and impact on choice of counsel.

The court found that the information sought could likely be obtained through documentary disclosure and examinations for discovery, making Maltz's testimony at trial not necessarily required.

The motion was dismissed as premature, upholding the defendants' right to chosen counsel.

The plaintiff sought to enforce a Vermont trial judgment against the defendant for services rendered.

The defendant opposed, alleging fraud, denial of natural justice, and public policy contravention.

The court granted summary judgment, finding a real and substantial connection to Vermont and dismissing all of the defendant's defences.

The applicant sought child support for two children and interim disbursements for legal fees.

The respondent opposed, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction due to ongoing litigation in Pakistan and Malaysia, and that he was already providing sufficient support.

The court found that it had jurisdiction based on a prior order and that there was no reason to defer the issues.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary child support for one child and interim disbursements to the applicant to level the playing field, noting the respondent's significant income and control over assets.

Costs were awarded to the applicant due to her overall success and the respondent's unreasonable approach.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's family law application, arguing the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant had not been ordinarily resident in Ontario for the one year immediately preceding the application, and therefore dismissed the claims under the Divorce Act.

However, the court held it had jurisdiction to hear the corollary claims for property, support, and custody under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act, as the applicant and children currently resided in Ontario and had a real and substantial connection to the province.

The plaintiff commenced an action against his mother, sister, and others regarding a family cottage, alleging fraud and conspiracy against his sister.

The plaintiff settled with the other parties and consented to the dismissal of the action against his sister.

The sister sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found no reason to deprive the successful sister of her costs and awarded them on a substantial indemnity scale due to the unproven allegations of fraud and conspiracy.

However, finding the claimed amount of over $400,000 excessive and disproportionate to the $300,000 value of the cottage, the court referred the bill of costs to an assessment officer before fixing the final amount.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking authorization to enter the defendants’ property to remediate a failing retaining wall previously constructed pursuant to court orders arising from a nuisance dispute involving runoff and soil movement between adjacent properties.

Applying the injunctive relief framework from R.J.R. – MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Att.-Gen.), the court found a serious issue regarding the plaintiffs’ right to prevent soil and debris flowing from the defendants’ property, irreparable harm if the wall collapsed, and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

Although the current structural failure was not directly caused by the defendants, the court held they remained ultimately responsible due to their prior alteration of land elevation and delays in remedying the problem.

The court authorized the plaintiffs to undertake remedial work and ordered the defendants to pay outstanding amounts owed under a prior order, with further provisions governing engineering oversight if warranty coverage failed.

Following a successful motion to change child support, the moving party sought costs.

The court found the moving party had made a compliant offer to settle under the Family Law Rules that was more favourable to the opposing party than the final order.

The opposing party argued that costs should be reduced due to the moving party’s pre‑litigation conduct, the impact of costs on adult children still attending university, and allegedly excessive legal fees.

The court held that unreasonable conduct under Rule 24(4) and (5) concerns behaviour during the litigation rather than pre‑litigation conduct.

Finding the moving party’s litigation conduct reasonable and the claimed fees appropriate for the complexity and time span of the issues, the court awarded fixed costs.

The moving party brought a motion to change a 1999 divorce order requiring monthly child support of $762, seeking termination of support effective December 1999 and rescission of accumulated arrears.

The court considered whether a material change in circumstances existed under s. 17 of the Divorce Act and the Child Support Guidelines.

Evidence established that the payor had never earned the income assumed in the original order and had operated a consistently unprofitable business while accumulating significant debt and relying on loans for subsistence.

The court imputed modest income beginning in 2006 and recalculated historical support obligations.

Because the payor had already paid more than what the recalculated guideline amounts required, all arrears were rescinded and prospective support was set based on an imputed income.

The plaintiffs brought a motion relating to the implementation and costs of a court-ordered construction project designed to remedy drainage and property impacts caused by alterations to neighbouring land.

The court reviewed affidavits from engineers addressing cost increases associated with implementing the approved design plan.

It accepted evidence that increased costs arose primarily from unforeseen soil conditions and confirmed that construction costs had been properly segregated from litigation costs as previously ordered.

The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the reasons for the cost overruns and that the project had been completed despite interference by the defendant.

The motion was granted as requested, with payment directed to be held in trust for the contractor and engineer.

Neighbouring property owners were engaged in protracted litigation concerning drainage and elevation changes caused by fill placed on the defendants’ property.

Earlier court orders required the construction of a retaining wall according to an agreed engineering design, with costs to be borne by the defendants.

After construction was completed, the plaintiffs sought payment of outstanding balances to the contractor and engineer from funds held in court and an order requiring the defendants to pay the remaining amount.

The defendants argued the wall was built according to a materially different plan than the one approved by court order and consent.

The court held that the work had proceeded without prior approval despite deviations from the approved design and costs exceeding the estimates, and required further affidavit evidence from the supervising engineer addressing the cost impact of those deviations before determining the remaining issues.

Following the dismissal of a motion seeking consolidation of an action and an application concerning ownership of a cottage, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendants.

Applying s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court emphasized that costs must be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of actual legal expenses.

The court assessed the roles played by counsel, the relative simplicity of the motion, and the absence of extensive responding materials.

Several defendants were awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting their limited participation, while the defendant who prepared the principal responding materials received a higher award.

The unsuccessful moving party was ordered to pay the fixed costs to each successful defendant within ninety days.

The appellant sought to hold city councillors personally liable for voting in favour of a by-law that reimbursed two councillors for legal expenses related to election compliance audits.

The by-law was subsequently declared ultra vires.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that municipal councillors are not absolutely liable for ultra vires acts.

To establish personal liability for breach of fiduciary duty to taxpayers, a plaintiff must prove malice, bad faith, or misfeasance.

The court found no evidence that the councillors acted with an improper motive or preferred their personal interests over their duties.

The defendant moved to stay an Ontario action on the basis that Vermont was the more appropriate forum for a dispute arising from an allegedly unpaid US$3.5 million promissory note connected to hotel investments in Vermont and New Hampshire.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because the defendant resided in Ontario, triggering a presumptive connecting factor under the framework established in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.

The defendant failed to rebut the presumption or demonstrate that Vermont was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The court emphasized that both parties resided in Ontario, the alleged default occurred in Ontario, the defendant’s assets were located in Ontario, and requiring the plaintiff to litigate in Vermont would create unfairness because he was barred from entering the United States.

The motion to stay the Ontario proceeding was dismissed.