Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 176
we’ve been looking for.” He believed this to be in relation to the regulatory changes that favoured
local production.
[689] At this meeting the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, Mr. Fehr, Mr. Spencer and the Kerr Brothers, all
agreed that DIAND had indicated that if they built a mill they would be given access to the
necessary timber to operate it.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[690] It is clear from the Plaintiffs’ witnesses that it was on the strength of this assurance that mill
construction proceeded. Their evidence was not challenged on cross-examination or by the evidence
of any of the Defendant’s witnesses.
[691] There were more meetings and more letters between the LPL and the Defendant. On the
totality of the evidence, I find that these meetings occurred for the mutually beneficial purpose of
establishing a sawmill in Watson Lake. In plain terms, this project was important to DIAND; see
also Exhibit P-79, Tab 109.
[692] A meeting was held on April 9, 1998, between LPL and 391605 B.C. Ltd., then the parties
to the joint venture that was operating the mill. Minutes of this meeting were entered as Exhibit D-
11, Tab 111.
[693] Timber supply was the topic of conversation. It was discussed that the joint venture would
be “getting 20,000 m 3 in short order, at the expense of local permit holders (they are apparently not