Clem and David's Statement of Claim is 23 pages in length but it follows an interesting story. Some interesting things to take note of are the dates.
July 31, 2007 a BOG Meeting reviews two legal opinions and decided that Clem Chartier’s Term of Office is done and he needs to step down and wait till he is re-elected to continue.
Clem and David advise the other four BOG members that they are filing a statement of claim. August 3, 2007 David Chartrand published a press release that indicated that he was proceeding with legal action based on unanimous support of the MMF Board of Directors.
August 23, 2007 President Chartrand submitted another Press Release saying, “President David Chartrand announced today that a court injunction is being sought to protect democracy and restore order to the Métis National Council. The matter will be heard before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on September 6th 2007.” http://mmf.mb.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=456&Itemid=2
September 6, 2007 David submitted another Press Release that indicated that, “the Manitoba Métis Federation (MMF) and the Métis National Council (MNC) President Clem Chartier were successful in obtaining a Court Order bringing to a half the actions of some members of the Board of Governors.”
September 17, 2007 David then identifies that they are vindicated and that the courts had ordered a MNC Assembly for October 13 and 14, 2007.
Pay attention to the dates because now we come to the Statement of Claim that they indicate was filed by August 23, 2007. The MNC's and 4 BOG members lawyer, David Debenham from Lang Michner had searched for the alleged Statement of Claim sround September 8, 2007. He was unable to access it back then.
The four Board of Governors and their legal counsel were not able to access it until the first week of December because David, Clem or their legal counsel never did deliver it to them. In November, after the failed MNC Assembly in October the four BOG members had to engage a new lawyer that came from Fraser Milner Casgrain law firm. He searched the Claim out and disseminated it to the parties named.
You will note that the Statement of Claim indicates it was developed on August 21, 2007 but the court stamp of when it was filed was SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 well after the courts had ordered the MNC Assembly for October 13 and 14, 2007. They did not serve the names on the Statement and as far as it is known at this time – the statement still sits as Mr. Clem Chartier seeking damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $200,000.00 and aggravated and or punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00. He also request pre and post judgment interest, costs on the cost of the action, GST and any other relief the court will permit.
I will post some of the pages at this time as they will demonstrate the story that has just been shared. My only question is – that being this deceit was perpetuated even after as David calls it – “They were vindicated” – why proceed with a means to get more money. In fact – what damages Clem the MNC continued to pay your salary and wages into October. Were the damages the loss of your exuberant travel expenses?
5 comments:
To get this straight. Since the election. Clem is sueing Clem?
I can see it now, Clem on the witness stand:
Lawyer for the Defense: Mr Chartier, do you owe Mr Chartier the agreed amount $300,000?
Clem: Yes I believe we the MNC owe Mr. Chartier that amount.
Lawyer for the Defense: No further question.
Lawyer for the Plaintive: Mr Chartier does the MNC agree to pay Mr Chartier the sum of $300,000?
Clem: Uh yes, he is justly owed that money.
Lawyer for the Plaintive: Ok no further questions.
Gotta love Metis politics.
Metis Mama, It is common for statements of claim to be filed well before they ae served. Additionally, they can be amended at any time and the most recent stamp could simply have been the most recent amendment to the statement of claim. Finally a claim can also be filed, and put into abeyance in order to give the parties time to resolve the dispute. I'd have to take a closer look in order to detail what actually happened here. But the evidence which you have presented, doesn't, on it's face, present a problem.
As for what Clem will do now, who knows. He probably wants to collect on the past 8 months of salary, and according to the courts, he probably has a right to collect on it. That appears to me to be a matter which will be settled out of court.
You need to remember that the MNC is a seperate juridical person. A corporation has a legal personality seperate and distinct from it's shareholders and directors. Clem is free to pursue his action against the corporation, even if he the head of that corporation.
This all goes to show that the MNC governance structure is terribly flawed and we are bumping against the limits of the corporate form.
One principle which ought to the Metis Nation ought to take away from this catastrophe is that the Canadian Court system should not be used to resolve internal Metis Nation disputes. That erodes our independence and strikes at the core of our claim to Self-government. MNA's judiciary council and MNBC's Senate serve as models of Metis governed conflict resolution processes that ought to be developped at the national level. Neither of those systems are perfect either. For instance the MNA's Judicary Council lacks transparency while the MNBC's senate lacks the jurisdiction to strike down offensive bylaws and policies of the assembly. But those systems remain infinitely better than running to the Canadian court system.
Good answer!
While big city metis makes some good legal points, here's the practical problem.
The Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. and Clement Chartier are suing the Metis National Council, Metis National Council Secretariat Inc., Audrey Poitras, Robert Doucette, Tony Belcourt, and Bruce Dumont.
Do you really expect both sides to work together as an effective, cohesive team?
How do you spell dysfunctionality MetisMama?
Hi MetisMama,
They've started posting David Chartrand and Clem Chartier's lawsuit against the rest of the Metis National Council.
I can't believe this. Paragraph 15 reads, "Since his election on October 23, 2003, Mr. Chartier has faithfully, diligently and successfully performed the duties of MNC President and CEO."
What? Wasn't there a period of over one year during which time there were no MNC meetings? Don't most corporate Boards of Directors get together at least quarterly.
I don't understand this, could you please explain.
Post a Comment