Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 160
[622] Mr. Gerry Van Leeuwen, the expert witness called on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was direct and
credible in his evidence. When asked to explain the apparent inconsistency between his report on
the efficiencies of the mill which he prepared in 2001 and his current report projecting future loss of
profits arising from the closure of the mill, he did so in a straight-forward manner. He was not
shaken in cross-examination. He was plausible and reliable.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
(iii)
Defendant’s Witnesses
[623] In general, the Defendant’s witnesses were less satisfactory.
[624] Mr. Ronald Irwin, formerly a Minister, was the first witness to testify on behalf of the
Defendant. His manner of testifying and the inconsistencies of his evidence, in comparison with the
evidence of other defence witnesses and the documentary exhibits lead me to conclude that he was
not a credible witness.
[625] Mr. Irwin demonstrated a selective memory. In cross-examination, he sparred unnecessarily
with counsel, in order to avoid answering questions. He frequently chose to avoid the question
asked; rather, he added irrelevant comments designed to distract from the main issues. His evidence
was also internally contradictory. This occurred on several occasions due to his propensity to
respond to questions with self-serving answers. One example, among others, appears at pages 2263
to 2264 of the transcript where the following exchange is recorded:
Q. Did you understand there was any kind of a forestry
industry at all in the Yukon while you were the Minister
A. All insolvent. So, there was no industry, it was insolvent.