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 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.

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 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.