WINNIPEG · AN INDEPENDENT LOOK AT THE COURT RECORD
Independent commentary commissioned by the claimant. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Crown Auto Group or vehicle manufacturers.
Also in the network: Crown Autobody & Glass Read the distinction ↗CROWN AUTO GROUP · WINNIPEG
A $16,084.82 default order.
A $16,265.82 garnishing order.
The supplied court records document orders in VTB’s payment dispute with six companies linked in its claim to Crown dealerships. Read the emails, the allegations and the signed orders.
DDDhiya DilawriCo-CEO, Crown Auto Group30 days’ notice. An earlier cutoff. A disputed payment obligation.↗Dhiya is identified as the email author. The supplied judgment names corporate defendants, not her personally.
THE DEALERSHIPS IDENTIFIED IN VTB’S CLAIM
Richmond registry · File 31970
75040 Manitoba Ltd.
See the named company ↗02Dilawri Holding Inc.
See the named company ↗03Ashok Management Inc.
See the named company ↗04Destination Motors Inc.
See the named company ↗0525 North Inc.
See the named company ↗06Anika Holdings Inc.
See the named company ↗Dealership-to-company associations are taken from VTB’s filed claim. Company names above follow the default order; the “Holding” / “Holdings” discrepancy is explained below. These are not six separate $16,084.82 awards. VTB reports the judgment remains unpaid as of October 17, 2026; this has not been independently verified.
01 / THE CORRESPONDENCE
SOURCE FIRST. CONTEXT ALWAYS.Dhiya Dilawri’s August 7, 2026 email says Crown will provide 30 days’ notice under the agreement. Later messages discuss an earlier finish, continued service and payment. VTB disputes that it agreed to shorten the payment period.
PUBLISHER’S VIEW / BASED ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BELOW
A co-CEO’s written commitments deserve scrutiny. We criticize Dhiya Dilawri’s decision to state an August 17 service-and-payment cutoff after giving 30 days’ notice. VTB disputes agreeing to shorten the payment period. Her intervening conditional offer to continue through September 7 and VTB’s response are included below so readers can assess the complete sequence.
This is criticism of documented business decisions, not a claim that the court found Dhiya personally liable or dishonest.
Co-CEO, Crown Auto Group
“After reflecting on our discussion, however, our decision remains unchanged, and we will be providing 30 days’ notice under our agreement.”
The same email says day-to-day work and existing projects are expected to continue as normal during the notice period, and asks VTB to advise in advance if it prefers to conclude sooner.
VTB’s account in its Notice of Claim
“After giving notice, the Defendants proposed ending services on August 17, 2026 and paying only a prorated amount through that date. The Claimant did not agree to shorten or waive the 30-day notice period.”
This is the claimant’s allegation. It is not presented as a standalone contested finding by the court or as proof of anyone’s motive.
THE INTERVENING EMAILS / CONTEXT REVIEWED IN OUTLOOK
Summaries were checked against supplied Outlook messages and the quoted thread on October 17, 2026. They preserve both parties’ positions; they are not findings by the court.
She acknowledges that 30 days’ notice was originally provided, cites concerns about service and the experience since notice, proposes ending services on August 17 with prorated billing, and asks the VTB representative to discuss internally and confirm.
She disputes the VTB representative’s characterization of events and says Crown is prepared to honour that arrangement if services continue as contemplated and existing projects are completed. Alternatively, she proposes a mutually agreed August 17 conclusion with prorated payment.
He says accounts are generally removed from VTB’s systems after a confirmed end date and that setup again is time-consuming. He says VTB can look into resuming if access is provided again, with clear instructions and separation of responsibilities. He maintains that the contract and notice period stand, current invoices remain as issued, and September billing still needs addressing.
She acknowledges the VTB representative’s position on notice and payment through September 7, says continued work would not be productive, and states services will conclude effective August 17 with payment for services through that date. She also asks for supporting advertising invoices before assessing those charges.
The exchange documents differing positions about early termination, continued performance and payment. It does not support saying that Dhiya denied the original 30-day notice ever existed, or establish a finding of dishonesty.
This report includes the August 7 termination notice and the August 14–19 exchange about notice, continued performance and payment. Later settlement correspondence is not reproduced. The August 7 screenshot is a termination notice, not the original contract-acceptance email. The claim refers to notice on or about August 8; the email header shows August 7.
02 / THE JUDGMENT
Supplied signed order · Current registry status unverified
$16,084.82
CAD · Total shown on the supplied order
VTB reports that the judgment remains unpaid as of October 17, 2026. The figures here are the order amounts, not an independently verified current account balance. Later payments, interest or court orders could change the position. Current registry status has not been independently confirmed.
Download supplied image ↓READING THE FIGURES
Transcribed from the supplied image. Check the original court record before relying on these figures.
WHAT THE SUPPLIED DOCUMENT RECORDS
The date stamped in the default-order section.
Provincial Court of British Columbia, Small Claims Court.
The marked ground states that the defendants did not file a Reply and service was proved.
The order records default for failure to file a Reply. It does not include a reasoned, contested determination of the email dispute or findings of fraud or dishonesty.
03 / THE COMPANIES
Names matter. Legal entities matter.
CLAIMANT
As named on the supplied order.
SIX DEFENDANTS / AS TRANSCRIBED
The supplied Notice of Claim associates 75040 Manitoba Ltd. with Winnipeg Honda. This is the claimant’s identification.
The supplied Notice of Claim associates Dilawri Holding Inc. with Crown Toyota. This is the claimant’s identification. The registry summary says “Dilawri Holdings Inc.” while the order says “Dilawri Holding Inc.”; that naming discrepancy needs confirmation.
The supplied Notice of Claim associates Ashok Management Inc. with Crown Acura. This is the claimant’s identification.
The supplied Notice of Claim associates Destination Motors Inc. with Crown Mazda. This is the claimant’s identification.
The supplied Notice of Claim associates 25 North Inc. with Crown Nissan. This is the claimant’s identification.
The supplied Notice of Claim associates Anika Holdings Inc. with Crown Honda. This is the claimant’s identification.
A 2018 City of Winnipeg committee agenda references a letter from 75040 Manitoba Ltd., operating as Winnipeg Honda. Crown Autobody’s own website includes Winnipeg Honda in Crown Auto Group’s dealership network. [2] [3]
The newly supplied Notice of Claim associates all six defendants with specific dealerships, as shown above. Those mappings are attributed to VTB’s pleading, not an independent ownership opinion. “Crown Auto Group” itself is not a defendant name shown on the supplied order.
04 / CASE TIMELINE
07 AUGUST 2026 / SUPPLIED EMAIL
The email from Dhiya Dilawri states that Crown will provide 30 days’ notice under the agreement and expects ordinary work to continue during that period.
Explore the correspondence ↗The supplied image includes a completed, dated and signed default-order section. An independent registry copy has not yet been obtained.
The new photograph shows a dated, signed and court-stamped garnishing order naming Bank of Montreal. The total amount attached shown is $16,265.82, including $181.00 in attachment costs. Service and recovery are not established by this photograph.
VTB reports no payment as of October 17, 2026. This is the claimant’s account, not an independently verified balance. No current registry search establishes whether a challenge, stay, variation or set-aside application exists.
ENFORCEMENT / SIGNED & STAMPED COPY
The supplied photograph shows a court stamp, date and authorized signature for October 13, 2026 in Richmond file 31970. Bank of Montreal (BMO) is named as garnishee.
The printed “proposed order” heading remains on the form, but this new copy bears the court’s date, stamp and signature. It supersedes the earlier unsigned copy for this site’s description. The photograph does not establish service on BMO, funds paid into court, or money received by VTB. Current registry status has not been independently checked.
Garnishment is an enforcement process involving money owed to a judgment debtor by a third party. A payment order and a garnishing order are different documents; the existence of an order does not itself prove recovery. Read the BC Provincial Court explanation ↗
A supplied Notice of Claim bears a September 3, 2026 registry stamp. It seeks $15,630.80 before interest and costs, comprising August fees, September digital-content charges and advertising charges. These are the claimant’s pleaded allegations.
05 / THE PRINCIPLE
Businesses ask the public for trust. We believe that trust should include scrutiny of documented court orders, accurate reporting of outcomes, and space for a response. This is our editorial position, not a finding by the court.
Read the evidence behind this page ↗06 / SOURCE LIBRARY
Research reviewed October 17, 2026
Privacy redactions remove VTB address details and personal names from selected copies. Case text, dates, amounts and court authentication marks are preserved. Originals are retained privately.
October 13, 2026 · BMO named as garnishee · $16,265.82 shown · Supplied photograph
Redacted screenshot · Dhiya Dilawri to VTB · Includes expectation of continued work
Claimant’s allegations about the notice period and payment cutoff · Supplied court-file copy
Claimant’s identification of corporate defendants and dealership names
Primary material supplied by the requester · Not independently authenticated
January 15, 2018 · PDF page 2 · Historical 75040 Manitoba Ltd. / Winnipeg Honda reference
Company-published description of the Crown dealership network
General explanation of enforcement processes · Not a record of this case
These pages record the claimant’s allegations and supporting indexes. Indexes are not substitutes for the underlying exhibits.
An October 8, 2026 email reviewed in Outlook shows a VTB representative requesting a publication-authorized statement through Crown’s lawyer for a planned media release. It asked about notice, work during the notice period, account access and disputed amounts, separately from settlement discussions. Whether a response was received has not been established in this review. Relevant responses and documented corrections are welcome through the enquiry form below.
PRESS / RESPONSES / CORRECTIONS
This form prepares an email to info@vancouvertelevision.ca. Your email app opens so you can review and send it. This website does not store or automatically send your entry.
Or email info@vancouvertelevision.ca directly
Please identify the passage and supporting document for a correction. Avoid including unnecessary sensitive personal information.
