Justice law court grey background

Brantford Lawyer accused of second scandal

On February 26, 2014 I made a video called “Notice Given: If You Lie about Men I Will Expose Your Lies”

The video was made as a direct result of what I witnessed in a case before the Brantford Ontario Courts. In the video I mention Tom, a regular guy who is going through a pretty tough custody battle.

Tom alleges that his ex-wife’s lawyer, David Maltby, has acted dishonestly in the case and that he has intentionally obstructed Tom’s efforts to achieve a just resolution to the matter. Tom claims that Maltby has intentionally entered false information on court forms; delivered court documents to the wrong address outside of the prescribed time; and that his ex, Cindy, made it difficult for him to visit his child.

While Tom’s allegations are yet to be tested in a court of law, Maltby (a Brantford lawyer whose main areas of practice are family, real estate and civil litigation) has acted unprofessionally before. Maltby was found guilty by the Law Society of Upper Canada of misleading a client and delaying delivery of legal documents to a second lawyer the client hired. According to Maltby, “I delayed the case although it was commenced through another lawyer. I acknowledged what I did and admitted I had not served my client well.” Maltby had lied to his client over the course of SIX YEARS, telling her that he was working on her behalf (while under retainer) despite the fact that he hadn’t begun any legal action.

That case was originally covered by Susan Gamble, of the Brantford Expositer.

On February 23, 2014 I was given the opportunity to view the trial record delivered to Tom’s mother on February 19. The trial record contained numerous documents spanning approximately three years of appearances. There are several discrepancies in the trial record produced by Maltby, some of which were not even known to Tom. These discrepancies, however, corroborate Tom’s claims of dishonest acts by Maltby.

The opening sentence of the cover letter states that Tom’s mother’s place was the only one on record Maltby had. This claim from Maltby, however, isn’t accurate. Men’s Human Rights Ontario has obtained copies of documents that prove that Maltby had documents in his possession with Tom’s real address on them.

The first set of documents below are called a Form 8 (General). On page 2 of this document there is a date of July 14, 2010 and next to that the clerk of the court line starts off with “David” and then the letter “M” and what looks to be an “A”. These 2 letters are scratched out and under them a last name of Thompson is entered.
Maltby 1On page 3 of the Form 8 we have under the respondent’s (Tom’s) section his correct date of birth entered. I confirmed his correct date of birth first via Tom’s birth certificate, second confirmation was by his mother. Also on page 3 of the Form 8 in the section where the children are listed; in this section Tom’s non-biological child is missing.

In the check box where it asks if the parties or the children have been involved in court cases before, it is indicated that an application was discontinued and the parties had reconciled.

Maltby 2
Page 5 of the Form 8 is signed by the applicant Tom’s ex ‘Cindy’ on July 14, 2010.

The next document is a Form 35.1 Affidavit in support of Claim for Custody or Access, dated on page 2. Cindy indicates in section 3 that there is a non-biological child to Tom involved.

Maltby 3
She also states she has only been involved in a custody or access case with the biological child of Tom and Cindy in section 4.
Maltby 4Page 5 is signed by Cindy and a commissioner for taking affidavits. The date on this is July 14, 2010. The signature is David Maltby’s. Also on the trial record with a date of July 14, 2010 is a Form 6 B, affidavit of service. Maltby indicates he served both documents on Tom and that the ‘author’ was Cindy. On the first sheet of all 3 documents in the bottom right hand corner is the website logo “www.DIVORCEmate.com”

According to the company website DIVORCEmate is, “Software for the Canadian Family Law Practitioner” and is only available to law practitioners according to its Try Now section; “Note: Trial installation keys will only be provided to family law professionals.”

This seems to indicate that the signature found on page 2 of Form 8 is that of Maltby, or there is a David Thompson Cindy visited shortly before Maltby who has a habit of starting to sign his last name with the letters M and A and they also use DIVORCEmate

David Thompson also has a habit of switching from using all capitals in his first name to using just the first letter of his surname capitalized. The way David Thompson enters the date bears a striking resemblance to how Maltby signs the date too.

It seems very unlikely Cindy went to 2 different lawyers on July 14 to get her paper work done.

At tab 16 of the trial record dated November 22, 2012 a Form 25F Restraining Order, Final is issued.

In the respondent section where Tom’s name is to go his date of birth has been changed from 1966 to a different month day and year. It now reads off as Jan 1 1967. Also of note in the respondent section of this form is Tom’s correct address. This disproves Maltby’s letter that arrived with the trial record which claimed Tom’s mother’s place was the only address they had on record.

Going back to the claim made by Cindy on her Form 35.1, in section 4 she claimed she has never been involved in a custody / access case before. However, I was able to talk to the father of Cindy’s first child and confirm that there was another custody battle. The custody / access case took place in 2006. This information was deliberately left off the Form 35.1…. and David Maltby was Cindy’s lawyer in that case as well.

In an interview I did with Matt, the father of Cindy’s first child, he also claimed documents were delivered to the wrong address. Matt also claimed, like Tom, that Cindy made it difficult for him to see the child.

All of this evidence will be entered in a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada against Maltby according to Tom.

Those who would lie about men are no longer able to do so with impunity in Southern Ontario.

About Dan Perrins

Dan "Dannyboy" Perrins, up until a few years ago, was blissfully ignorant of what was going on. Then a series of events demanded he either grab his ankles and let a corrupt "just-us" system have its way with him or take action. He chose the latter.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Jesse James

    The thing that is even worse, potentially, is when we can get judge’s to publish their financial records. Either through organizations like the FBI, or in local courts when challenged. These idiots live like kings, with armies of cronies lining up to feed on the helpless. They have to know what is going on, and I would be shocked if they are not receiving bribes under the table. Your attorney charged you 40000 dollars? The judge probably saw a couple grand out of that.

    I suspect that si the real reason pro se is frowned upon. They know that filing forms should be significantly easier. Also, that all evidnce and documents can be brought on the first court date. Finish the trial, call it a day.

    But then the judge, and all of his/her cronies from CPS, court psychologists, attorneys posing as a GAL, and about seventy others won’t make any money, or have any authority with which to harm people.

    We need a change in family court something fierce, and something quick. I tried in vain to link the Social Security act here in the states with family court, and feminist, practices. I think I showed enough to say that there was some obvious connections. Hoping that those who read it would look into it, and get angry enough to make a change. Does everyone forget about 2008 already?



    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ DannyboyCdnMra

      Your right, its a money scam.
      A little south of the border. Court systems up here are a little different. Judges are appointed and not elected.
      The ties to SS would be ties to something else up here social insurance number maybe?
      They could care less about that.
      That being said the Ontario courts it seems has been stacking their ranks with former children’s aid society (Cdn version of cps) lawyers. This is a conflict of interest and prevents judges from having a objective view of any matter involving cas/cps.
      2008 I was still living in ignorance about to have my eyes ripped wide open by a vengeful ex.
      You know most of the rest of the story from there brother,

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ DannyboyCdnMra

    Well here is the thing we expose 1 and then another and then another, and soon the words gets round if you lie about men and we can prove it you get exposed.
    That hurts their ability to practice law, once disbarred that’s it game over for them.
    And I can tell you right now Maltby is not a happy camper about this. I’m betting he has told his lawyer buddies already, they have most likely sat up and taken notice, that might be just enough to stop 1 lie and save 1 man’s life from suicide.
    As for the feminist problem your absolutely right, however when trying to cure ‘measles’ you can also treat the fever and other symptoms along the way.
    Lastly, Tom is already bring in people to carry the message that feminism is a fraud. Our numbers grow, our ability to cure those fe-measles grows too.
    3 pronged pincer move brother,

    • Politically Incorect

      Misandry and Feminism hate must die !!

      • Chris Wedge

        Destroy ALL the bigotry!
        Dunno about some people, but I’d sure as hell be a feminist if we actually did live in a “patriarchy” as they define it.

        But if we did, the feminist rise to power would have been bloody. Not as in “a couple of feminist terrorists who even scared the police shitless” but more of a full-blown civil war scale. And no doubt women would have died more than in every other war put together…

        (feel free to steal this as a simple, logistical method of disproving patriarchy if you ever forget your handy dandy statistics, everyone)

  • Attila_L_Vinczer

    What needs to be understood is the entire Family Court is vastly and mostly a racket and a shakedown of family money. Once you enter this arena, you may as well turn over all your current and future cash.

    We need to continue to expose this racket and we need to refuse to participate in it. It is NOT in the best interest of the children to do so. Every dollar given to a lawyer is a dollar transferred from mom or dad to the lawyer and taken form the child(ren). In the end, most of the costs are born by the man and father.

    Remember, if a lawyer can induce conflict they can prolong billing while a prompt settlement results in the end of lawyer billing. Also keep in mind that the average hard working individual must work one week to cover the cost of one hour legal cost.

    • Politically Incorect

      They finally start doing Mediations in Ontario family courts . The less lawyers are involve the better !

  • Attila_L_Vinczer

    Danny, don’t forget to use the Rules of Professional Conduct. See which and all rules this lawyer has violated and be sure to bring that to the attention of the LSUC for their action. Hopefully, the LSUC will actually take real disciplinary action against this pathetic lawyer who adds putting the legal system into disrepute as do so many other lawyers, who are never called out to justice.

    I listened to an LSUC lawyer state in Harry Kopyto’s good character hearing that a know felon, a man who hijacked an aircraft to Cuba from Canada, was eventually deemed to have good enough character to be allowed to practice law in Ontario, sanctioned by the LSUC. This is what we are dealing with friends.

    It is like going to the leader of the pride and complaining that a lion has ravaged. The leader of the pride has en even greater ferocious appetite to tear you apart!


    • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ DannyboyCdnMra

      Thanks, already have the applicable sections ready to go. Something else I noticed on the LSUC site is that lawyers can be charged criminally, I’m fairly sure something around 139 of the CCC (obstruct justice) might be highly applicable given his multiple instances of dodgy documents.
      Add to that the intentional change of his DOB which resulted in a very restrictive restraining order and imho it is probable cause for an arrest.

      • Attila_L_Vinczer

        The cops in most cases will not lay the information. (charge the criminal lawyer) But you can!

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ DannyboyCdnMra

          If it needs to go to a pre-enquette it will be done.

  • fathers4fairness

    Perfect! Yes – this is intentional obfuscation of justice and I have seen it occur frequently in Alberta. Intentionally filing FALSE address and making sure it occurs at the last possible minute before the deadline in order that the other side has no chance to respond are what I call “Professional Discourtesy’s” – and they are particularly galling when extended to Self Represented Litigants.