Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-24-168 Date: August 8, 2025
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
RAZ MANGEL Applicant
- and -
URSULA MENZEL Respondent
Before: Wilkinson J.
Counsel:
- Idan Erez, for the Applicant
- Paul Portman, for the Respondent
Heard: July 28, 2025
Reasons for Judgment
Background
[1] The Respondent, Ursula Menzel, brings this motion seeking an order declaring that the Applicant, Raz Mangel in his capacity as trustee for Mordechai Larry, and/or Mordechai Larry are vexatious litigants, such that they should require leave to commence any further court action of any kind and in any jurisdiction. The Respondent also seeks an order dismissing this Application, as she argues that it is frivolous, vexatious or without merit.
[2] For the reasons that follow, the Respondent's motion is dismissed.
Background
[3] The Applicant began a romantic relationship with Mordechai Larry around the end of 1999. They married in 2004. There is one child of the relationship, May Margaret Larry Menzel, born December 19, 2006.
[4] On or around July 2002, Ms. Menzel and Mr. Larry began to cohabitate in Israel. At the time, Mr. Larry was working for Beta Systems Ltd. ("Beta"). The history of Mr. Larry's involvement in Beta is set out in a decision of Justice Snowie of the Ontario Superior Court, released on October 28, 2016 after a ten-day trial: Menzel v. Larry, 2016 ONSC 6599.
[5] According to para. 10 of the decision, Mordechai Larry began working for Beta in the 1980s as an employee. In 1999, the owners of the company were looking to sell Beta. Mr. Larry was unable to purchase the company in his own name because he was an undischarged bankrupt. He therefore approached his brother, Jacob Larry, and asked for Jacob Larry's agreement that Mordechai Larry be able to purchase Beta in Jacob Larry's name. The evidence before Justice Snowie was that Jacob Larry agreed to this arrangement, on the condition that he would have nothing to do with the business and its operations. Justice Snowie stated in her decision that the plan, which was carried out, was for Jacob Larry to transfer the shares of Beta to Mordechai Larry in 2006 once he was discharged from bankruptcy.
[6] In approximately October 2009, Ursula Menzel and May moved to Canada, and resided at the matrimonial property, located at 39 Foxwood Crescent in Guelph, Ontario. The home was purchased with funds in the range of $465,000 CAD, which Mr. Larry removed from the sale of Beta. After the home was purchased, Mordechai Larry continued to live part-time in Israel while working for Beta.
[7] In September 2011, Mordechai Larry stopped providing financial support to Ms. Menzel and their daughter, May.
[8] The parties separated in December 2012, following which Ms. Menzel and May remained living in the matrimonial home in Guelph.
Ontario Family Law Application by Ms. Menzel
[9] In March 2013, Ms. Menzel issued an Application in Ontario as against Mordechai Larry, seeking a divorce, sole possession of the matrimonial home, and various support and equalization orders.
[10] Justice Snowie found that in 2013 after the parties' marriage broke down, Mordechai Larry drafted a trust agreement backdated to 2006, indicating that the Beta shares that were transferred to him in 2013 were held by him for his brother Jacob. The alleged agreement and the alleged transfer of share deeds in trust were created to establish that the business was actually Jacob's, and that Mordechai Larry had no ownership in Beta at all.
Judgment in Israel in Favour of Jacob Larry
[11] In 2014, Jacob Larry sued Mordechai Larry and Ms. Menzel in Israel for repayment of the $465,000 CAD removed from Beta. In that litigation, Jacob Larry alleged that Ms. Menzel and Mordechai Larry had misappropriated the $465,000 CAD used to purchase the matrimonial home and a car in Guelph.
[12] Jacob Larry received a judgment on January 18, 2016 against Mordechai Larry and Ms. Menzel for $750,000 from the court in Israel. Ms. Menzel appealed this decision. She maintained that the $465,000 CAD at issue in the Israeli action was already being addressed in the Canadian matrimonial action. Ms. Menzel submits that Jacob Larry and Mordechai Larry fraudulently argued in the Israeli action that it was Jacob Larry who owned shares in Beta, and not Mordechai Larry. She claims that their arguments regarding this issue were intended to deceive the Israeli court, and permit it to adjudicate an issue that it ought not to have addressed, as it involved property in Canada.
Ursula Menzel is Successful at the Family Trial in Ontario
[13] Approximately eight months later, Justice Snowie released her decision in Ontario. In her decision, Justice Snowie made a finding that Mordechai Larry owned Beta, and that he had received $465,000 CAD from the sale of Beta, which was used to purchase the matrimonial home in Guelph. Justice Snowie therefore rejected Mordechai Larry's claim that his brother, Jacob Larry, owned Beta. Justice Snowie also found that Mr. Larry had been compensated $1,500,000 CAD from the sale of Beta.
[14] Based on her findings, Justice Snowie ordered that Ms. Menzel was to have exclusive title to the matrimonial home. Recognizing the value of the matrimonial home, she further ordered that Mordechai Larry was to pay Ms. Menzel an equalization payment of $235,209.75.
[15] Justice Snowie also made retroactive and ongoing orders for the payment of child support by Mordechai Larry to Ms. Menzel.
[16] Although Mordechai Larry filed a Notice of Appeal, he did not perfect the appeal. Accordingly, the October 24, 2016 decision of Justice Snowie remains in full force and effect. Ms. Menzel deposes that Mordechai Larry has not made the payments owing to her resulting from Justice Snowie's decision.
Israel Appellate Decision Overturns Jacob Larry's Judgment against Ms. Menzel – New Trial Ordered
[17] In November 2016, which was the month following the release of Justice Snowie's decision, the Israeli Appellate Court ordered the disclosure of approximately 3500 pages of phone records in the possession of Mordechai Larry, and ordered a new trial for Jacob Larry's case against Mordechai Larry and Ursula Menzel, again before Justice Eliyahu.
Beta and Mordechai Larry Declare Bankruptcy in Israel
[18] In March 2017, Beta declared bankruptcy in Israel. In June 2017, the Israeli Central District Court ordered Beta's assets to be liquidated. The Israeli Central District Court granted the Applicant, Raz Mangel, powers to manage the assets of Beta with respect to the bankruptcy, first as a Special Manager, and then as a Trustee, for both Beta and Mordechai Larry.
[19] Ms. Menzel deposes that she was never made aware of the bankruptcy of Mr. Larry as a registered creditor, despite the Canadian judgment of Justice Snowie.
Re-Trial of Jacob Larry's Claim in Israel
[20] At the second trial on January 6, 2019, Justice Eliyahu dismissed Jacob Larry's claim as against Ms. Menzel, and ordered $25,000 in costs against Mordechai Larry. Justice Eliyahu also changed the title of proceedings in the litigation to make Mordechai Larry a defendant.
The Second Israeli Proceeding Brought by the Applicant Raz Mangel
[21] In February 2021, the Applicant, Mr. Mangel, commenced a proceeding to "review an Unlawful Grant by Mordechai Larry and of Beta's funds to purchase the matrimonial home". This review involved a consideration of the bankruptcies for both Beta and Mordechai Larry. In that proceeding, the trustee alleged that Ms. Menzel had misappropriated Beta's funds to purchase the matrimonial home.
[22] On February 22, 2021, Justice Nutovitz ruled on behalf of the Israeli Court that it was not bound by the Canadian judgment of Justice Snowie. At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr. Mangel was awarded judgment as against Ms. Menzel in the amount $232,488 CAD, plus costs.
Appeal of the Second Israeli Decision
[23] Ms. Menzel appealed the decision of Justice Nutovitz. On May 8, 2022, the Israeli Appellate Court referred the matter back to the Israeli Central District Court for further consideration of the relevance of the final order of Justice Snowie.
[24] Ms. Menzel deposes that due to financial reasons, she was unable to adequately participate or attend the subsequent new hearing dates. On January 25, 2023, the Israeli Central District Court held that Ms. Menzel had abandoned her claims. The original judgment was re-instated, with additional costs payable to Mr. Mangel.
[25] Ms. Menzel's time to appeal the Israeli Judgment has expired. The Israeli Judgment is therefore final. Ms. Menzel has not paid any of the amounts owed to the Applicant, Mr. Mangel, with respect to the judgment.
The Current Ontario Application
[26] Mr. Mangel filed the present Application on May 9, 2024, seeking an order that the Ontario Court recognize the Israeli Judgment against Ms. Menzel, and directing that it be enforced as a Judgment of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Ms. Menzel is Awarded $12,000 Security for Costs
[27] Ms. Menzel brought a motion seeking $200,000 in security for costs, that was heard on November 19, 2024. In his decision, Justice Bloom awarded Ms. Menzel $12,000 security for costs, with the following commentary:
Mr. Mangel is subject to the equities as against Mr. Larry for purposes of the argument of justness, relative to a security for costs order…
In my view, logic dictates that result as well as common sense and fairness. It is just that an order for security for costs be made when the applicant seeks to enforce a judgment, while Mr. Larry owes the respondent a large sum under an Ontario judgment based on much of the same factual background and circumstances.
The Current Motion
[28] Ms. Menzel brings this motion seeking an order declaring that the Applicant, Raz Mangel in his capacity as trustee for Mordechai Larry, and/or Mordechai Larry, are vexatious litigants, and shall require leave to commence any further court action of any kind and in any jurisdiction. Ms. Menzel also seeks an order dismissing this Application, arguing that it is frivolous, vexatious or without merit. In the alternative, Ms. Menzel argues that this matter ought to proceed by way of an action and proceed to trial, given its complexity and the interjurisdictional nature of various pieces of litigation.
Position of Ms. Menzel
[29] Ms. Menzel argues that this Application is an attempt to prevent Mordechai Larry from paying the judgment and costs awarded to her by Justice Snowie in the Ontario Family Application, including all outstanding child support payments. In her argument, Ms. Menzel equates the position of Mordechai Larry as the debtor in the family law litigation, with Mr. Mangel, who acts as trustee in the bankruptcy of Mordechai Larry. She argues that Mr. Mangel and Mr. Larry are colluding to allow Mr. Larry to avoid satisfying his support obligations to Ms. Menzel as awarded by Justice Snowie.
[30] Ms. Menzel argues that the combined team of Mr. Mangel and Mordechai Larry are forum shopping, and should be declared vexatious litigants. She further argues that this Application should be dismissed as an abuse of process. Ms. Menzel points to the language in Justice Bloom's oral ruling regarding the security for costs motion, and suggests that a conclusion can be drawn from the ruling that the relief sought by Mr. Mangel in the Application is a violation of public policy for the following reasons:
a) It would be unjust and against public policy to permit enforcement of a foreign judgment when the Mordechai Larry owes $232,000 to her, and an additional $100,000 in child support; and
b) That there was clear overlap between Justice Snowie and Justice Nutowitz' orders, and there were very clear findings that Mr. Larry engaged in fraud.
[31] Ms. Menzel argues that it is appropriate for me to determine this issue on a summary basis to reduce the costs that would be required to have a full hearing regarding the issues in dispute.
Position of Mr. Mangel
[32] Mr. Mangel is a lawyer practising in Israel. He strenuously argues that his role in this litigation is not the same as the position in which Mr. Larry finds himself, and that there is no collusion between him and the bankrupt Mr. Larry.
[33] Mr. Mangel provides affidavit evidence that in Israel, insolvency matters are supervised by the courts. He stated that on June 12, 2017, the Israeli Court ordered Beta's assets to be liquidated, and that he was appointed on the same date to serve as a Special Manager of Beta's assets. He stated that his role was to investigate Beta's assets and its creditors' claim, and to make a proposal by which those assets can be liquidated to the benefit of Beta's creditors.
[34] On April 22, 2018, Mr. Mangel was also appointed by the Court to serve as a Special Manager with respect to Mr. Larry's personal assets. Mr. Mangel further states in his affidavit that Mr. Larry was declared bankrupt by the Israeli Court on October 2, 2019, and that he was appointed as trustee over Mr. Larry's assets.
[35] Mr. Mangel further deposed that it was through his efforts as a Special Manager that he discovered Mr. Larry's misconduct, and assigned him into bankruptcy. He therefore submits that there is no co-operative relationship between him and Mr. Larry, as their positions are not aligned. Mr. Mangel emphasized in argument that he is not acting in his own personal capacity, but in the capacity of a court-appointed trustee, with the mandate to secure funds for Mr. Larry's creditors. Mr. Mangel states that Mr. Larry stands to receive no benefit whatsoever from a judgment issued by this court in the underlying Application.
[36] Mr. Mangel also submits that because the administration of bankruptcy is under the supervision of the Israeli Court, his conduct is scrutinized, and must be approved by the Court. In particular, the Israeli Court was required to approve this Application before it was commenced, and the payment of his legal fees.
[37] Mr. Mangel argues that admissions made by Ms. Menzel in the Israeli litigation underscore the legitimacy of his Application, including her acknowledgment that she knew that the house in Ontario was being purchased to move funds away from Mr. Larry's creditors.
[38] Mr. Mangel argues that as this is the first Application he has brought in Ontario, Ms. Menzel has failed to establish that he is a vexatious litigant. He argues that she has failed to establish that he and Mr. Larry are legally equivalent actors in both the present Application, and in the marital litigation between Ms. Menzel and Mr. Larry.
[39] Mr. Mangel argues that it is open to Ms. Menzel to argue that Justice Snowie's decision is a defence to this Application at the hearing of the Application, but that the existence of the Snowie decision is not a sufficient reason to declare this Application to be an abuse of process.
The Law
[40] There is a very high threshold that must be established for a party to be declared to be a vexatious litigant. The test is set out in s.140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43:
Vexatious litigant orders
140 (1) If a judge of the Superior Court of Justice or of the Court of Appeal is satisfied that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in any court or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner, the judge may make an order that includes any of the following terms:
No further proceeding may be instituted by the person in any court, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
No proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court shall be continued, except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.
Any other term that is just. 2024, c. 2, Sched. 6, s. 7 (1).
[41] The purpose of vexatious litigant orders is to prevent litigants from harassing others, and to protect the vexatious litigant from squandering their own resources: Austin v. House, 2022 ONSC 2349, 71 R.F.L. (8th) 164, at para. 7.
[42] Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act is to be interpreted narrowly, such that its application should be reserved for the clearest and most compelling of cases: Austin, at para. 8, citing Kallaba v. Bylykbashi, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 320 (Ont. C.A.), at paras. 112-115.
[43] The Court of Appeal for Ontario set out some of the hallmarks of vexatious litigants in Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at paras. 19 and 20, including, but not limited to:
i) the litigant is virtually always self-represented;
ii) arguments are often unintelligible or highly confused;
iii) written submissions contain information that is not legally relevant to the dispute;
iv) marked lack of due diligence in the advancement of claims;
v) exhaustion of all rights of appeal any time there is an adverse judgment;
vi) unsustainable allegations and gratuitous complains against members of the legal profession;
vii) a cessation of proceedings only when the litigation cannot pay legal fees and costs;
viii) bringing multiple proceedings to try to re-determine already determined issues;
ix) rolling forward grounds and issues from prior proceedings;
x) failure to pay cost awards;
xi) bringing proceedings for a purpose other than the assertion of legitimate rights; and
xii) inappropriate submissions in both form and content.
[44] The residual discretion of judges to prevent an abuse of the court's process was discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.), Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77. The concept of abuse of process was described at para. 35 of that decision as proceedings that are "unfair to the point that they are contrary to the interest of justice": citing R. v. Power, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601, at p. 616. At para. 37 of the decision the Supreme Court stated that the doctrine of abuse of process engages the court's inherent power to prevent the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
[45] Orders dismissing a proceeding as an abuse of process "are only to be granted in the clearest cases and only when allowing the action to proceed would bring the administration of justice into disrepute": Phillion v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 567, at para. 49.
Analysis
Vexatious Litigant Motion
[46] This is Mr. Mangel's first Application filed in the Ontario Superior Court. The purpose of his Application is to enforce a foreign judgment in Ontario. There is no evidence of Mr. Mangel bringing multiple proceedings before this court.
[47] Mr. Mangel is the trustee in bankruptcy for Mr. Larry. As such, his position is not aligned with Mr. Larry. There is no evidence before me to suggest that Mr. Mangel conspired with Mr. Larry to assist Mr. Larry in avoiding his obligation to pay Ms. Menzel what she is owed under the Snowie Judgment. Ms. Menzel chose not to cross-examine Mr. Mangel on his affidavit. In addition, the monitoring of Mr. Mangel's actions by the Israeli court is further evidence supporting his claim that he is not colluding with Mr. Larry.
[48] The fact that Justice Bloom found that Mr. Mangel was subject to the equities as against Mr. Larry for the purposes of the security for costs motion does not establish that Mr. Mangel's position and Mr. Larry's position are equivalent positions. The equitable jurisdiction given to Justice Bloom to award security for costs does not bind future judges to conclude that Mr. Larry and Mr. Mangel are to be treated as legally the same person for the purposes of determining the Application. Justice Bloom's ruling involves a finding that it would be unfair to Ms. Menzel to defend the Application with no security paid to her. I accept Mr. Mangel's position that his interests are not aligned with Mr. Larry's interests, and that they do not share the same factual or legal identity.
[49] Having regard to the vexatious litigant factors in Lochner, the only factor raised by Ms. Menzel that is potentially relevant is her allegation that Mr. Larry and Mr. Mangel have been collectively engaged in multiple proceedings in different jurisdictions to try to re-determine already determined issues. However, it must be emphasized that Mr. Larry and Mr. Mangel are not legally the same person. Mr. Mangel had no involvement in the Ontario family litigation, which took place before he was involved in Mr. Larry's bankruptcy proceedings. There is no basis in law to connect Mr. Mangel to the Ontario litigation that preceded his involvement. Further, Mr. Mangel's role in Mr. Larry's bankruptcy is not to protect Mr. Larry, but to protect the financial interests of his creditors.
[50] There is no evidence before me that Mr. Mangel is a vexatious litigant. Accordingly, Ms. Menzel's motion to have Mr. Mangel declared to be a vexatious litigant fails.
Abuse of Process Motion
[51] There is no evidence before me that Mr. Mangel has engaged in an abuse of process. Ms. Menzel does not provide specific evidence in her motion record to support her claim that Mr. Mangel's Application is an abuse of process. Though not specifically argued, I note that the Snowie decision and the Israeli decision did not involve the same litigants, as Mr. Mangel was not involved in proceedings before Justice Snowie. It cannot therefore be concluded that an Ontario court has already addressed all the issues currently in dispute between the parties to this Application.
Conclusion
[52] Ms. Menzel has failed to establish that Mr. Mangel is a vexatious litigant, or that the Application filed by Mr. Mangel is an abuse of process.
[53] The evidence that Ms. Menzel brings forward regarding the findings of Justice Snowie are relevant considerations to be addressed when the merits of the Application are argued, including Ms. Menzel's argument that an order for child support takes priority over all other creditors.
[54] This motion is a failed attempt to address the merits of the Application in an abbreviated fashion. It is appropriate that Mr. Mangel's Application proceed, to be considered along with all the equitable arguments available to Ms. Menzel at the hearing of the Application.
Costs
[55] The parties are encouraged to agree upon costs. If they are unable to do so, the Applicant may prepare a cost submission to be served and filed by August 20, 2025. The Respondent may prepare a cost submission to be served and filed by September 3, 2025. All costs submissions shall be no longer than three pages double-spaced, not including Bills of Costs or Offers to Settle, and may be sent to my attention at scj.csj.general.brampton@ontario.ca.
Wilkinson J.
Released: August 8, 2025