Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 187
[732] Similarly, Mr. Loeks advised the Department that there would be “vicious recriminations if
they [SYFC] collapse because government takes another half-year to provide planning certainty”.
This warning illustrates that the Department knew that there was a possibility of SYFC failing as a
result of the inordinate delay in implementing long-term tenure. This warning also demonstrates that
the Department had notice that there would be consequences if such a collapse occurred.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[733] It is my finding that throughout the course of this relationship, there was reasonable
foreseeability of harm, or actual foresight of harm, flowing to the Plaintiffs if CTPs were issued
negligently or if the implementation of the long-term tenure was inordinately delayed.
(c) Conclusion on Prima Facie Duty of Care
[734] I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs have shown that the Defendant owed them a prima facie
duty of care, arising from the close relationship and foreseeability of harm. The relationship was
direct and proximate. The mill needed wood to be successful. The Department needed a mill to
provide economic development of a forest industry and the Department controlled access to the
wood supply. The evidence I have mentioned proves the relationship. There is further evidence in
the record which supports this conclusion.
[735] The duty of care arose in relation to LPL in 1997 following the “due diligence” meeting in
Whitehorse in the summer of 1997 and I so find.