Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 108 [428] This agreement provides that SYFC is the operating entity for the joint venture. The joint venture parties are LPL, 18232 Yukon Inc., KFR and SYFC. Mr. Fehr testified that 18232 Yukon Ltd. was incorporated for the purpose of participating in the joint venture. Clause 2.4 of this agreement provided that the joint venture is not a partnership. 391605 B.C. Ltd. was appointed the manager. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [429] The mill reopened on April 30, 1999; see the Response to Request to Admit. [430] On May 5 th , Ms. Guscott responded to an email, entered as Exhibit P-79, Tab 161, to Mr. Beaubier, in reference to a return call made to the ADM’s office by SYFC. In her email Ms. Guscott said: We have the matter under control and they are just a pushing company…the company thinks they received more out of the Moore letter than what Moore really said. I note that this email is one of many from the Defendant’s documents that is indicated as being a forwarded message but did not include the original message. [431] By letter dated May 11 th , SYFC replied to a letter from Mr. Moore dated April 30 th . In this letter, SYFC recounted that the mill reopened on April 30 th and pointed out that it had worked within existing policy and regulations but it was being negatively affected by delays on the part of the Regional Office in issuing cutting permits. This document is found at Exhibit D-11, Tab 19. The
Page: 109 continuing delays by DIAND would result in an indefinite shutdown of the mill, according to SYFC. [432] Throughout the month of May, Mr. Kennedy reported to Ms. Guscott the internal difficulties at DIAND that were causing the problems in getting wood; see Exhibit P-79, Tab 170, and Tab 173. Ms. Guscott acknowledged that deadlines had been missed; see Exhibit P-79, Tab 175. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [433] Then there was a series of emails between SYFC and DIAND, beginning on June 1, 1999. These emails addressed the supply of wood available by CTP, and DIAND advised SYFC that the estimate of wood available was 190,520 m 3 for the 1999/2000 harvest season. This volume was very close to the volume required by SYFC. Notwithstanding this communication, DIAND did not guarantee availability to SYFC. [434] On June 4 th , Brian Kerr sent an email, entered as Exhibit D-11, Tab 74, to Mr. Sewell, again expressing frustration with the timber supply situation. He asked if things were not straightened out, who was going to tell the people of Watson Lake that no work would be available. [435] By email dated June 7 th , entered as Exhibit P-79, Tab 182, Mr. Sewell responded and told Mr. Kerr that threats and harassment would not work. Mr. Sewell said that “we” have agreed to an aggressive plan. I find this to be a reference to the meeting held on April 7 th . He also stated that: We all know that there are significant challenges to meeting the wood needs of the company under the current regime. We have agreed to an aggressive plan to work towards a THA type of regime as fast as we can.
- Page 57 and 58: Page: 57 [225] In protest over the
- Page 59 and 60: Page: 59 described the LPL project
- Page 61 and 62: Page: 61 [238] The RIAS also explai
- Page 63 and 64: Page: 63 [246] For the sake of clar
- Page 65 and 66: Page: 65 [254] This was the context
- Page 67 and 68: Page: 67 [263] By 1996, according t
- Page 69 and 70: Page: 69 [270] Following the April
- Page 71 and 72: Page: 71 require 200,000 m 3 of tim
- Page 73 and 74: Page: 73 June 4, 1996. In his lette
- Page 75 and 76: Page: 75 [294] Mr. Ivanksi testifie
- Page 77 and 78: Page: 77 [303] This proposed invest
- Page 79 and 80: Page: 79 C. 1997 [311] In late 1996
- Page 81 and 82: Page: 81 Watson Lake area. I unders
- Page 83 and 84: Page: 83 [326] This report, prepare
- Page 85 and 86: Page: 85 [332] As previously noted,
- Page 87 and 88: Page: 87 D. 1998 [341] The first jo
- Page 89 and 90: Page: 89 [349] Mr. Henry explained,
- Page 91 and 92: Page: 91 It seems the goal of havin
- Page 93 and 94: Page: 93 [365] The Plaintiffs were
- Page 95 and 96: Page: 95 remained on the site for s
- Page 97 and 98: Page: 97 evidence, which is consist
- Page 99 and 100: Page: 99 [389] A meeting was held o
- Page 101 and 102: Page: 101 [396] These documents wer
- Page 103 and 104: Page: 103 location under a future C
- Page 105 and 106: Page: 105 [414] A briefing note, da
- Page 107: Page: 107 to shut down operations i
- Page 111 and 112: Page: 111 [439] On October 1, 1999,
- Page 113 and 114: Page: 113 [447] In October 1999, DI
- Page 115 and 116: Page: 115 regulations would impleme
- Page 117 and 118: Page: 117 [464] There was another m
- Page 119 and 120: Page: 119 [472] Mr. Ballantyne, the
- Page 121 and 122: Page: 121 [482] However, there is a
- Page 123 and 124: Page: 123 [488] I note that on the
- Page 125 and 126: Page: 125 [498] Mr. Ballantyne said
- Page 127 and 128: Page: 127 [508] SYFC had announced
- Page 129 and 130: Page: 129 [516] The closure of the
- Page 131 and 132: Page: 131 [523] The Hyland-Coal THA
- Page 133 and 134: Page: 133 [531] As mentioned earlie
- Page 135 and 136: Page: 135 explained to YCS that the
- Page 137 and 138: Page: 137 [543] At this time the jo
- Page 139 and 140: Page: 139 without the promised timb
- Page 141 and 142: Page: 141 479 In some respects coun
- Page 143 and 144: Page: 143 B. Preliminary Issues [56
- Page 145 and 146: Page: 145 of action arising in that
- Page 147 and 148: Page: 147 [577] In responding to th
- Page 149 and 150: Page: 149 The plaintiff shall serve
- Page 151 and 152: Page: 151 20 For the reasons expres
- Page 153 and 154: Page: 153 [598] Both the Plaintiffs
- Page 155 and 156: Page: 155 … Liability for acts of
- Page 157 and 158: Page: 157 from the evidence, and if
Page: 108<br />
[428] This agreement provides that SYFC is the operating entity for the joint venture. The joint<br />
venture parties are LPL, 18232 Yukon Inc., KFR and SYFC. Mr. Fehr testified that 18232 Yukon<br />
Ltd. was incorporated for the purpose of participating in the joint venture. Clause 2.4 of this<br />
agreement provided that the joint venture is not a partnership. 391605 B.C. Ltd. was appointed the<br />
manager.<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
[429] The mill reopened on April 30, 1999; see the Response to Request to Admit.<br />
[430] On May 5 th , Ms. Guscott responded to an email, entered as Exhibit P-79, Tab 161, to Mr.<br />
Beaubier, in reference to a return call made to the ADM’s office by SYFC. In her email Ms. Guscott<br />
said:<br />
We have the matter under control and they are just a pushing<br />
company…the company thinks they received more out of the Moore<br />
letter than what Moore really said.<br />
I note that this email is one of many from the Defendant’s documents that is indicated as being a<br />
forwarded message but did not include the original message.<br />
[431] By letter dated May 11 th , SYFC replied to a letter from Mr. Moore dated April 30 th . In this<br />
letter, SYFC recounted that the mill reopened on April 30 th and pointed out that it had worked<br />
within existing policy and regulations but it was being negatively affected by delays on the part of<br />
the Regional Office in issuing cutting permits. This document is found at Exhibit D-11, Tab 19. The
Change language