As I previously indicated the Statement of Defense was filed in December based on the fact that David and Clem and their legal counsel withheld the serving of the Statement of Claim. I will post some of the pages that indicate things like the Date, Legal Counsel and some of the issues that were addressed as per the Statement of Defense.
The Statement in its’ entirety will be posted on http://cybersmokeblog.blogspot.com/.
I will note a few things that you will find on the Statement that are of interest:
It clearly identifies that Clem Chartier did not suffer damages because he was paid his wages and exuberant benefits until October 12th, 2008.
The Statement of Defense states that MMF did not suffer any damages and had no legal legitimate claim to be a part of the Statement of Claim.
Now down to the issue of the “Betterment of the Nation” and “For the Métis People” like David claims. When you read the Statement of Claim and the Statement of Defense – it looks more like the betterment of David Chartrand, President of MMF.
The Statement of Defense clearly dealt with the issue of Metco Ventures and the irregularities of the Health Agreement.
Removal of President Necessary and in Substantial Compliance with the MNC Bylaws
21. With knowledge of the invalidity of the extension of his term, Plaintiff Chartier continued to act as President of the MNC after October 23, 2006. To the knowledge of the plaintiffs and as evidenced by the vote on the extension of his term, Plaintiff Chartier did not enjoy the support of the majority of the Board of Governors with respect to his continuing role as president of the MNC.
22. Subsequent to October 23, 2006, concerns arose among the Defendant Presidents over a health contract (referred to in the statement of claim) that was entered into in March and July, 2007 between the MNC and a private Alberta company by the name of Metco Ventures Inc (“Metco Contract”).
23. The Canadian federal government under a global agreement with the MNC (“Contribution Agreement”) was to advance substantial funds to the MNC for subsequent distribution within the Metis Nation through the auspices and under the oversight of the Provincial Governing Members for health related purposes as set out in that agreement.
24. The Metco Contract had been entered into without proper Board of Governors authorization. It had been signed only by the President of the Plaintiff MMF, President Chartrand, with the support of Plaintiff Chartier.
25. The Metco Contract did not have the support of the MNA although it was targeted at delivering services to the Metis people of Alberta. It had instead the support of only some of the leaders of one of the zones within the MNA (known as Zone I). The owner of Metco Ventures Inc. is also the vice president of Zone I and a member of the MNA provincial council.
26. Over a million dollars were to be provided under the Metco Contract to Metco. In addition to the concern over a possible conflict of interest noted above, there were also concerns on the part of the Defendant Presidents about whether the funds being advanced under this contract (also under the signing authority of the President of the Plaintiff MMF) were being used as required by the terms of the Contribution Agreement and the Metco Contract.
27. The Metco Contract and the subsequent flow of funds from the MNC to Zone I of the MNA both took place in a manner which improperly circumvented the MNC as well as the governing body of the MNA, including the Defendant President Poitras, and broke with the established practice of non-interference by the MNC in the affairs of the Provincial Governing Members.
28. The Defendant Presidents therefore sought a meeting of the Board of Governors for the purpose of considering these issues on a number of occasions. In time it became clear to them that the plaintiffs were not willing to address these issues in this manner or at all. Without the support of the Plaintiff MMF’s President (President Chartrand), which support they sought but was refused, the Defendant Presidents were unable to convene such a meeting on their own.
David has and still does present Audrey Poitras as the sole one responsible for many of these issues – but based on a read of the Statement of Claim – the majority of the Board of Governors were working hard to maintain the integrity and accountability of an organization that is now on its’ last breath.
The point I would like to end on for now is the fact that the Statement of Defense clearly states the concern with Clem and David with their Abuse of Authority and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Statement of Defense clearly lays out the position that:
39. The actions of the plaintiffs disregarded the wishes of a majority of the MNC Board of Governors and were intended to further improper and/or unlawful activity with regard to the Metco Contract and prevent the Board of Governors from inquiring into potential instances of nepotism and financial mis-management within the MNC.
40. Their actions were also designed and intended to unfairly influence the electoral prospects of Plaintiff Chartier at the upcoming General Assembly, all to the detriment of the MNC, its processes and traditions, and against the unity of the Metis Nation.
Gives one a moment to go – I wonder …. what could have been had he not been re-elected?
The Statement in its’ entirety will be posted on http://cybersmokeblog.blogspot.com/.
I will note a few things that you will find on the Statement that are of interest:
It clearly identifies that Clem Chartier did not suffer damages because he was paid his wages and exuberant benefits until October 12th, 2008.
The Statement of Defense states that MMF did not suffer any damages and had no legal legitimate claim to be a part of the Statement of Claim.
Now down to the issue of the “Betterment of the Nation” and “For the Métis People” like David claims. When you read the Statement of Claim and the Statement of Defense – it looks more like the betterment of David Chartrand, President of MMF.
The Statement of Defense clearly dealt with the issue of Metco Ventures and the irregularities of the Health Agreement.
Removal of President Necessary and in Substantial Compliance with the MNC Bylaws
21. With knowledge of the invalidity of the extension of his term, Plaintiff Chartier continued to act as President of the MNC after October 23, 2006. To the knowledge of the plaintiffs and as evidenced by the vote on the extension of his term, Plaintiff Chartier did not enjoy the support of the majority of the Board of Governors with respect to his continuing role as president of the MNC.
22. Subsequent to October 23, 2006, concerns arose among the Defendant Presidents over a health contract (referred to in the statement of claim) that was entered into in March and July, 2007 between the MNC and a private Alberta company by the name of Metco Ventures Inc (“Metco Contract”).
23. The Canadian federal government under a global agreement with the MNC (“Contribution Agreement”) was to advance substantial funds to the MNC for subsequent distribution within the Metis Nation through the auspices and under the oversight of the Provincial Governing Members for health related purposes as set out in that agreement.
24. The Metco Contract had been entered into without proper Board of Governors authorization. It had been signed only by the President of the Plaintiff MMF, President Chartrand, with the support of Plaintiff Chartier.
25. The Metco Contract did not have the support of the MNA although it was targeted at delivering services to the Metis people of Alberta. It had instead the support of only some of the leaders of one of the zones within the MNA (known as Zone I). The owner of Metco Ventures Inc. is also the vice president of Zone I and a member of the MNA provincial council.
26. Over a million dollars were to be provided under the Metco Contract to Metco. In addition to the concern over a possible conflict of interest noted above, there were also concerns on the part of the Defendant Presidents about whether the funds being advanced under this contract (also under the signing authority of the President of the Plaintiff MMF) were being used as required by the terms of the Contribution Agreement and the Metco Contract.
27. The Metco Contract and the subsequent flow of funds from the MNC to Zone I of the MNA both took place in a manner which improperly circumvented the MNC as well as the governing body of the MNA, including the Defendant President Poitras, and broke with the established practice of non-interference by the MNC in the affairs of the Provincial Governing Members.
28. The Defendant Presidents therefore sought a meeting of the Board of Governors for the purpose of considering these issues on a number of occasions. In time it became clear to them that the plaintiffs were not willing to address these issues in this manner or at all. Without the support of the Plaintiff MMF’s President (President Chartrand), which support they sought but was refused, the Defendant Presidents were unable to convene such a meeting on their own.
David has and still does present Audrey Poitras as the sole one responsible for many of these issues – but based on a read of the Statement of Claim – the majority of the Board of Governors were working hard to maintain the integrity and accountability of an organization that is now on its’ last breath.
The point I would like to end on for now is the fact that the Statement of Defense clearly states the concern with Clem and David with their Abuse of Authority and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Statement of Defense clearly lays out the position that:
39. The actions of the plaintiffs disregarded the wishes of a majority of the MNC Board of Governors and were intended to further improper and/or unlawful activity with regard to the Metco Contract and prevent the Board of Governors from inquiring into potential instances of nepotism and financial mis-management within the MNC.
40. Their actions were also designed and intended to unfairly influence the electoral prospects of Plaintiff Chartier at the upcoming General Assembly, all to the detriment of the MNC, its processes and traditions, and against the unity of the Metis Nation.
Gives one a moment to go – I wonder …. what could have been had he not been re-elected?
1 comment:
MetisMama,
Paragraph 78 of the Statement of Claim:
78. Further, it was not until August 15, 2007 while at the MNC office, that Mr. Chartier was given an envelope by the accounting clerk of the MNC which contained a cheque for RRSP contribution in the amount of $2,476.90, as well as two (2) earnings statements in the amount of $11,649.95 and $686.97, previously direct deposited into Mr. Chartier's bank account.
Clem Chartier you deserve the above amount and not one penny more! Asking the court to award you $300,000 in damages is nothing more than a shoddy, blatant attempt at a revenue grab. Both David Chartrand and you should be kicked out of the MNC on your ass for bringing our national organization into such disrepute!
Post a Comment