Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 10 documents and the facts contained in those documents, and with Mr. Preston’s permission I’m going to ask the official reporter to read that agreement into the record, and then I’ll ask whether Mr. Preston and Mr. Kerr if that is the agreement that we’ve come to. So if Madam Reporter would read that into the record, please. COURT REPORTER: (By reading) “Protocol 1 October 19, 2005. Penticton, BC The following has been agreed to by the parties: The plaintiff admits: 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) 1. as to the authenticity of the documents created by the plaintiffs as contained in all the plaintiff’s affidavit of documents. 2. the facts that are stated in the document were at the time of the creation of the document believed by the author, who was peaking for and on behalf of the plaintiff, to be true and accurate based [upon] the information and knowledge of the plaintiff, subject to errors and omissions that may be apparent from the admissible evidence and/or the trial Judge’s discretion. 3. this agreement is applicable from Plaintiff’s Document 733 and all documents thereafter.” MR. WHITTLE: My learned friend, has the official reporter read the agreement that we have come to correctly MR. PRESTON: Yes. Q. MR. WHITTLE: Mr. Kerr, do you agree that that is the agreement that we have come to A. Yes. [34] However, the Defendant subsequently attempted to resile from the purpose for which these documents were entered. Notwithstanding these attempts, it is a fact that the Defendant entered
Page: 11 these documents for the truth and accuracy of their contents, the Plaintiffs having admitted that the contents of the documents were true and accurate. [35] Insofar as any document in Exhibit D-11 was created by the Plaintiffs and refers to information which was in the knowledge of the Plaintiffs, I accept them for the truth and accuracy of their contents. The initial discussion relative to Exhibit D-11 can be found at page 550. A further 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) discussion is found at pages 792 to 798 of the transcript. [36] All quotations from the documentary exhibits, when reproduced below, appear in their original form. Any typographical errors are those of the original author. B. The Plaintiffs’ Witnesses [37] The first witness called on behalf of the Plaintiffs was Mr. Terrence Sewell. He is currently employed by the Government of Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in the position of Director-General of the Implementation Branch, Claims and Indian Government Sector. Mr. Sewell was employed by the Government of Canada, DIAND, as the Regional Director General (“RDG”), Yukon Region, stationed in Whitehorse. [38] He began his employment with the Federal Government in December 1997, following a period of employment with the Yukon Territorial Government (the “YTG”) that began in 1982. Prior to that time, Mr. Sewell had worked with the Ontario Government, in a number of positions
- Page 1 and 2: Federal Court Cour fédérale Date:
- Page 3 and 4: Page: 3 [7] This action was commenc
- Page 5 and 6: Page: 5 [16] On August 25, 2004, th
- Page 7 and 8: Page: 7 the appellant to serve and
- Page 9: Page: 9 [30] Both parties have subm
- Page 13 and 14: Page: 13 [42] Mr. Sewell provided g
- Page 15 and 16: Page: 15 [52] Mr. Leonard Bourgh wa
- Page 17 and 18: Page: 17 [62] Mr. Gurney operated a
- Page 19 and 20: Page: 19 [72] Mr. Brian Kerr was th
- Page 21 and 22: Page: 21 [81] In brief, as Woodland
- Page 23 and 24: Page: 23 with the LPL group; he rem
- Page 25 and 26: Page: 25 [97] Mr. Spencer also test
- Page 27 and 28: Page: 27 Keith Spencer on a regular
- Page 29 and 30: Page: 29 addressed meetings with DI
- Page 31 and 32: Page: 31 publications and a summary
- Page 33 and 34: Page: 33 [129] Mr. Irwin testified
- Page 35 and 36: Page: 35 Assessment Act, S.C. 1992,
- Page 37 and 38: Page: 37 [147] In his position as t
- Page 39 and 40: Page: 39 [156] Mr. Fillmore also ga
- Page 41 and 42: Page: 41 Department early in his te
- Page 43 and 44: Page: 43 Report for Forest Manageme
- Page 45 and 46: Page: 45 with no particular respons
- Page 47 and 48: Page: 47 [192] Mr. Sewell testified
- Page 49 and 50: Page: 49 4. The powers, duties and
- Page 51 and 52: Page: 51 [205] In the introduction,
- Page 53 and 54: Page: 53 activity occurs. The total
- Page 55 and 56: Page: 55 any person or class of per
- Page 57 and 58: Page: 57 [225] In protest over the
- Page 59 and 60: Page: 59 described the LPL project
Page: 10<br />
documents and the facts contained in those documents, and with Mr.<br />
Preston’s permission I’m going to ask the official reporter to read<br />
that agreement into the record, and then I’ll ask whether Mr. Preston<br />
and Mr. Kerr if that is the agreement that we’ve come to. So if<br />
Madam Reporter would read that into the record, please.<br />
COURT REPORTER: (By reading)<br />
“Protocol 1<br />
October 19, 2005.<br />
Penticton, BC<br />
The following has been agreed to by the parties:<br />
The plaintiff admits:<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
1. as to the authenticity of the documents created by the<br />
plaintiffs as contained in all the plaintiff’s affidavit of<br />
documents.<br />
2. the facts that are stated in the document were at the time of<br />
the creation of the document believed by the author, who was<br />
peaking for and on behalf of the plaintiff, to be true and<br />
accurate based [upon] the information and knowledge of the<br />
plaintiff, subject to errors and omissions that may be apparent<br />
from the admissible evidence and/or the trial Judge’s<br />
discretion.<br />
3. this agreement is applicable from Plaintiff’s Document<br />
733 and all documents thereafter.”<br />
MR. WHITTLE: My learned friend, has the official reporter<br />
read the agreement that we have come to correctly<br />
MR. PRESTON:<br />
Yes.<br />
Q. MR. WHITTLE: Mr. Kerr, do you agree that that is the<br />
agreement that we have come to<br />
A. Yes.<br />
[34] However, the Defendant subsequently attempted to resile from the purpose for which these<br />
documents were entered. Notwithstanding these attempts, it is a fact that the Defendant entered