01 / 30 DAYS’ NOTICE · AUGUST 7, 2026
“After reflecting on our discussion, however, our decision remains unchanged, and we will be providing 30 days’ notice under our agreement.”
WINNIPEG / DEALERSHIP RECORD
Crown
Mazda
Before your next drive with Crown Mazda, read the documented accounts.
Court records. Documented accounts. Available responses.
Examine the information collected here before making your decision.
01 / THE VTB PAYMENT DISPUTE
Start with the court record.
VTB’s filed Notice of Claim associates Crown Mazda with Destination Motors Inc.. It allocates $1,470.00 of the $15,630.80 principal claim to that company. This is the amount claimed for that company, not a separate judgment award.
The supplied October 13, 2026 default order names six corporate defendants and records failure to file a Reply and proof of service. The supplied garnishing order records $16,265.82 including attachment costs. Service and recovery have not been independently verified.
The additional court-file collection includes Sumit Panday’s contract claim against Destination Motors Inc. and Crown Mazda. The registry records satisfaction marked paid in full on October 29, 2020. A selected customer review describes engine trouble after a used-car purchase; that account is presented as an allegation, not a court finding.
THE CORRESPONDENCE / GROUP PAYMENT DISPUTE
Thirty days’ notice.
An earlier payment cutoff.
02 / PAYMENT LIMITED TO AUGUST 17 · AUGUST 19, 2026
“Accordingly, we will conclude services effective August 17 and will pay for services rendered through that date.”
These excerpts concern notice and the proposed payment cutoff. In between, Dhiya offered to continue through September 7 if services continued as contemplated; VTB responded about restoring access and maintained its payment position. VTB disputes agreeing to shorten the notice period. The judgment names corporate defendants, not Dhiya personally.
Read the intervening exchange and both parties’ positions →02 / SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS
Other court files.
Files involving the associated company in the records reviewed October 17, 2026. These are separate from VTB’s case. A filed claim is not a finding of wrongdoing. Discontinuances, payments and unknown outcomes are included. This collection is not an exhaustive litigation search.
FILE 02Decision · Paid in full
Crown Mazda
A contract claim. A decision. Paid in full.
SC20-01-38775
Sumit Panday v. Destination Motors Inc. and Crown Mazda
A contract claim was filed March 18, 2020. The decision entry lists $93.55 against each named defendant; this summary does not add those entries together.
Outcome / current record
Check the official registry ↗Enter file number SC20-01-38775. Reviewed October 17, 2026.The registry records a notice of satisfaction on October 29, 2020, expressly marked paid in full. The reasons for decision were not reviewed.
FILE 03Defended · Outcome not shown
Multiple corporate defendants
A media company files suit.
CI07-01-50697
Corporate Media Services Ltd. v. Ashok Dilawri and five companies
The February 15, 2007 claim names Ashok Dilawri, Ashok Management Inc., Anika Holdings Inc., 75040 Manitoba Ltd., Dilawri Holdings Inc. and Destination Motors Inc.
Outcome / current record
Check the official registry ↗Enter file number CI07-01-50697. Reviewed October 17, 2026.All defendants filed a defence on March 21, 2007. No judgment or disposition appears in the displayed docket. The claim’s substance and ultimate outcome are not established here.
03 / SELECTED NEGATIVE CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS
What customers reported.
Selected negative accounts from the sources linked below, with available business responses and reported resolutions. These third-party accounts are not independently verified or representative of every customer’s experience. They are not findings in VTB’s case. Review dates and source-review context are preserved.
ACCOUNT 07THIRD-PARTY ACCOUNT
Crown Mazda / Crown Toyota
Engine trouble after a used-car purchase.
BBB review · July 26, 2024
The customer’s account
A reviewer described engine problems following a Crown Mazda purchase and criticized both dealerships.
Response / context
Read the source and full exchange ↗No business response appears beside this review on the page reviewed. This account does not establish that a dealer knew of a defect before sale.