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 “”

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.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: