This takes the cake!

Good Day Folks:

The following Statement of Claim was filed with the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench by Murray Trachtenberg (Posner & Trachtenberg - www.ptlaw.mb.ca; mtrachtenberg@ptlaw.mb.ca) in August of 2005.

It should be noted that a Notice of Discontinuance was subsequently filed. From the Court's perspective it's as though the action never happened even though a paper trail remains. All that can be said is both sides reached an out of court agreement the details of which are known only to them. There are reasonable grounds to believe Walter Joseph Chartrand is Manitoba Metis Federation President David Chartrand's brother.

Certain postions of the Statement of Claim raise serious questions. These are in bold:

(1) At paragraph 6 page 4. If there was any doubt in the mind of Walter Chartrand as to his liability in co-signing a loan, why did he not obtain a copy beforehand for Counselor Trachtenberg's review and advice? Even assuming there was none, would it not have been prudent and wise on the part of the Plaintiff to do so regardless?

(2) At paragraph 8 page 5. Same argument as (1). Notice use of the phrase, "purported to reflect" - either the Plaintiff was on the hook or wasn't and if so he should have been aware of his potential financial liability

(3) At paragraph 12 page 5. Why was the Plaintiff's place of employment not identified?

(4) Paragraph 13, page 6. Same comment as (3)

(5) Paragraph 19 page 6. How could Plaintiff Walter Chartrand have deposits make into his chequing account over three consecutive months by, "a person or persons unknown" and not be aware of their identity? While the monthly payment to Chrystler is not detailed in the Statement of Claim, surely the total would have been in the hundreds and hundreds of dollars. This takes the (chocolate) cake!

Sincerely,
Clare L. Pieuk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
File No. CI 05-01-43903
THE QUEEN'S BENCH
WINNIPEG CENTRE

BETWEEN: WALTER JOSEPH CHARTRAND, plaintiff.
- and -
EASTWOOD CHRYSLER DODGE LTD. and CHRYSLER FINANCIAL CANADA (a division of Daimler Chrysler Services Canada Inc.), defendants.
___________________________________
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
___________________________________

POSNER & TRACHTENBERG
Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710 - 491 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3B 2E4

MURRAY N. TRACHTENBERG
Phone No. (204) 940-9602
Fax No. (204) 944-8878
File No. 2004-17

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANTS:

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a Manitoba lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Queen's Bench Rules, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff and file it in this Court office WITHIN 20 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you,if you are served in Manitoba.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is 40 days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is 60 days.

IF YOU PAY THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM, and $300.00 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your statement of defence, you may move to have this proceeding dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the plaintiff's claim and $300.00 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.

August 26, 2005
Issued by Deputy Registrar (Signature)

Address of the Court Office: 100C - 408 York Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 0P9

TO:
Eastwood Chrysler Dodge Ltd.
1700-A Waverley Street
Winnipeg Manitoba
R3T 5V7

Attention: Mr. Wayen Vickar, Operations Manager

AND TO:
Chrysler Financial Canada (a division of Daimler Chrysler Services Canada Inc.),
c/o D'Arcy & Deacon LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
1200 - 330 St. Mary Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3C 4E1

Attention: Russel G. Wookey

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims judment against the defendant Eastwook Chrysler Dodge Ltd. ("Eastwood") for:

(a) general damages in an amount to be determined by this Honourable Court;

(b) special damages in an amount to be proven at the trial of this action;

(c) costs on a solicitor and own client basis

(d) such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require and this Honourable Court deem just.

2. The plaintiff claims judgment against the defendant Chrysler Financial Canada (a division of Daimler Chrysler Services Canada Inc.) ("Chrysler") for:

(a) general damages in an amount to be determined by this Honourable Court;

(b) special damages in an amount to be proven at the trial of this action;

(c) aggravated and punitive damages;

(d) costs on a solicitor and own client basis;

(e) such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require and this Honourable Court deem just.

3. The plaintiff is a maintenance worker and resides in the Town of Fort McMurray, Alberta. At all material times, he resided in Winnipeg.

4. Eastwood is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Manitoba and carries on business in the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba.

5. Chrysler is a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of Canada with a registered office in the City of Windsor, Ontario and at all material times hereto was registered to and did carry on business in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

6. On or about August 29, 2003, the plaintiff attended Eastwood's business premises at the request of his friend Julian Boucher. Boucher resided at Pine Creek First Nation in Manitoba and had had communications with one or more sales employees of Eastwood to make arrangements fo purchase a vehicle. It was the plaintiff's understanding that he was attending at Eastwood for the purpose of co-signing the purchase documents with Boucher as Boucher's credit rating would not quality him as a purchaser without a co-signer.

7. The plaintiff met with Eastwood's employee Martin Lubimid and another salesperson named Brian, whose last name is unknown to the plaintiff but known to Eastwood ("Eastwood's employees"). He was presented with a number of documents to sign which he did.

8. The documents signed by the plaintiff made no mention of Boucher being the purchaser but instead purported to reflect the plaintiff as the sole purchaser of a 2001 used Oldsmobile Silhouette Extended Van ("the vehicle"). Particulars of the purchase were noted as follows:

Cash down payment $6,500.00
Total purchase price $33,571.12
Balance of price financed $27,071.12

9. Eastwood assigned the purchase aggreement with the plaintiff to Chrysler and all payments to be made were to be made to Chyrsler.

10. Neither the plaintiff nor Boucher made a down payment of $6,500.00 or at all and this figure was inserted by Eastwood's employees for reasons not known to the plaintiff. No demand for the plaintiff or Boucher to pay the $6,500 was ever made by Eastwood.

11. It was understood at all times between the plaintiff and Eastwood's employees that the vehicle would be delivered to Boucher at Pine Creek First Nation and would not be used at all by the plaintiff.

12. Shortly after August 29, 2003, Eastwood employees delivered the vehicle to Boucher at Pine Creek First Nation. Boucher was not satisfied with the vehicle and had the vehicle brought to Winnipeg and parked it at the plaintiff's place of employment.

13. Several days after this, Eastwood's employees attended at the plaintiff's place of employment and Brian picked up the keys to the vehicle from the plaintiff and drove it away. At the time the keys were returned to Brian, he advised the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no responsibility with respect to the vehicle.

14. At no time did the plaintiff ever have the vehicle in his possession after Brian picked up the keys and the vehicle as referred to in paragraph 13.

15. At no time did the plaintiff have any knowledge of the whereabouts of the vehicle after Brian picked up the keys and the vehicle as referred to in paragraph 13.

16. The plaintiff states as the facts are, that by accepting the return of the vehicle, Eastwood cancelled the purchase agreement and if the plaintiff had any liability there under, which is not admitted but denied, such liability ceased the day on which Eastwood regained possession of the vehicle.

17. As a result of the return of the vehicle to Eastwood, any liability the plaintiff had to Chrysler, which liability is not admitted but denied, was extinguished.

18. On or about February 23, 2004, Chrysler sent a notice to the plaintiff advising that monthly payments were in arrears and demanding payment of $1,715.55.

19. Upon investigation, the plaintiff was able to ascertain that in October, November and December 2003, a person or persons unknown to the plaintiff had deposited money into the plaintiff's Royal Bank chequing account which money was then automatically withdrawn by chrysler to pay the monthly payments on the vehicle. The December amount of money deposited to the plaintiff's account by the person or persons unknown was insufficient to cover the December payment to Chrysler with the result that other cheques written by the plaintiff were returned NSF and the plaintiff incurred bank service charges as a result.

20. Throughout early 2004, counsel for the plaintiff advised Chrysler of all details concerning this transaction including the fact that a report had been filed with the Winnipeg Police and the matter was under investigation. Despite this, Chrysler continued to take the position that the plaintiff was responsible for monthly payments for the vehicle.

21. The plaintiff further states as the facts are that his counsel advised Eastwood of this matter and the fact that Chrysler continued to demand payment from him.

22. During July 2004, Chrysler located the vehicle in the Province of Manitoba in the possession of a person unknown to the plaintiff and repossessed it.

23. On July 15, 2004, Chrysler gave the plaintiff a written notice of sale or disposition indicating that the vehicle would be sold after August 14, 2004 and that the plaintiff might be liable for a deficiency arising there from.

24. The plaintiff demanded an accounting of the sale proceeds from Chrysler but Chrysler refused and continues to refuse to provide same.

25. The plaintiff states as the facts are Eastwood's employees were at all times acting within their apparent scope of employment and that if one or more of them acted fraudulently with regard to the sale and return of the vehicle Eastwood is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees.

26. Chrysler, as assignee of the purchase agreement, is bound by the actions of Eastwood and its employees and has no better claim for payment against the plaintiff than Eastwood's claim.

27. Chrysler reported credit information to credit bureaus in Canada concerning this transaction which information was known to it or should have been known to it to be inaccurate and false including that the vehicle had been involuntarily repossessed from the plaintiff.

28. In the alternative, Chrysler was negligent in the reporting of credit information to the credit bureaus concerning the transaction.

29. Chrysler refused for a considerable period of time to correct the bureau information despite requests by the plainfiff to do so and despite having knowledge of the true facts concerning this matter.

30. As a result of the actions of Eastwood's employees, and as a result of the inaccurate and false information supplied by chrysler, the plaintiff has incurred legal costs, has suffered an impaired credit rating, was unable to borrow funds from his bank, and had to cash in a registered retirement saving plan and has thereby suffered financial damages and costs, details of which will be proven at the trial of this action.

31. The actions of Chrysler in reporting inaccurate and false information to the credit bureaus and refusing to correct same for a lengthy period of time despite being aware of the true facts has been callous, heavy-handed and warrants an award of aggravated and punitive damages.

August 26, 2005

POSNER & TRACHTENBERG
Barristers, Solicitors & Notaries Public
710 - Portage Avenue
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E4

MURRAY N. TRACHTENBERG
Counsel for the plaintiff