Sunday, September 26, 2010

Why wasn't the computer relinquished?











King versus Chapman (CI 10-01-68113)

Good Day Readers:

Here's the Statement of Claim filed with the court by William S. Gange.

As already noted he'll be in court next month trying to get a summary judgment, that is, have Alex Chapman's lawsuit against his client Jack King thrown out.

Note item 7(b). According to our resident electrical engineering/computer science/internet genius "The Great Bowkin" with today's highly sophisticated data retrieval sofware programs, it's impossible to guarantee all information has been deleted by a computer operator short of melting down their system. Therefore, could the argument not be made, albeit hypothetical, while Mr. Chapman may have thought he deleted all the imformation in reality did he?

Why Mr. Gange at the time as part of the agreement did not insist the computer be turned over to him on behalf of Mr. King is beyond us. My Goodness Mr. Chapman could have bought a dozen new units with the $25,000 he received.

Sincerely/Clare L. Pieuk

__________________________________________________

CLAIM

The plaintiff claime:

(a) general damages;

(b) punitive damages;

(c) damages pursuant to The Privacy Act;

(d) an injunction preventing the defendant from making any use of documents and materials that are in his vossession in violation of The Privacy Act and the settlement agreement entered into by the parties;

(e) an order to deliver up to the plaintiff all documents and articles that are in his possession in violation of The Privacy Act and the settle agreement entered into by the parties; and

(f) costs on a solicitor-client basis.

2. The plaintiffr is a lawyer who resides in the Rural Municipality of Springfield, in the Province of Manitoba.

3. The defendant resides in the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba.

4. In the year 2002, the defendant retained the plaintiff to act as legal counsel with respect to a matrimonial dispute.

5. In the year 2003, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had breached his fiduciary duty to the defendant.

6. The plaintiff and the defendant, through legal counsel, agreed to settle the defendant's claim on certain terms (the " settlement agreement") that included:

(a) the defendant would deliver to the plaintiff's counsel all documents, e-mails and photographs ever provided to the defendant by the plaintiff;

(b) the defendant would delete from his computer all e-mails and photographs ever sent to him by the plaintiff;

(c) the defendant certified that he had never forwareded any e-mails or photographs sent to him by the plaintiff;

(d) the defendant would keep confidential the terms of the settlement agreement and would not disclose or discuss the terms of th esettlement agreement with anyone, and

(e) the defendant would compensate the plaintiff if the plaintiff breached the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement

7. The defendant breached the terms of the settlement agreement. Particulars:

(a) the defendant kept copies of documents, e-mails and photographs provided to him by the plaintiff;

(b) the defendant failed to delete from his computer e-mails and photographs provided to him by the plaintiffs; and

(c) the defendant has disclosed and discussed the terms of the settlement agreement.

8. The defendant has used personal documents of the plaintiff without the consent of the plaintiff and in violation of the settlement agreement.

9. The defendant has substantially, unreasonably and without claim of right violated teh privacy fo the plaintiff.

10. As a result, the plaintiff has suffered damage.

11. The plaintiff relies upon the provisions of The Privacy Act and, in particular, Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8.

September 1, 2010

Gange Goodman & French/Barristers & Solicitors/760-444 St. Mary Avenue/ Winnipeg MB R3C 3T1

William S. Gange 953-5401

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home