Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 193
duty of care and that there was no breach of the standard of care. In the present case, the
Plaintiffs are not alleging a breach of the Defendant’s statutory duty.
[754] In this case, the Plaintiffs are not challenging the policy decisions of the Defendant to
introduce the 60/40 Rule, the two-tier stumpage regime, the use of long-term tenure in Yukon as a
means of establishing local processing, nor the establishment of the TSA harvest ceiling for CTPs.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
Rather, the Plaintiffs are basing their claim upon the negligent issuance of CTPs and inordinate
delay in implementing the policy to establish long-term tenure.
[755] The Plaintiffs complained about the negligence that occurred in the issuance of CTPs for
short-term supplies of timber. For example, the delays in issuing the CTPs, the absence of adequate
field reconnaissance, resulting in CTPs where there was no wood, and the general failure of DIAND
in managing its personnel and resources are operational issues.
[756] The view that the challenged conduct of the Defendant was not a policy decision is
supported by the Defendant’s documentary evidence and the testimony of her witnesses. There is
ample evidence in the record that supports this proposition. I will only refer to two examples.
[757] First, I refer to the testimony of Mr. Monty in cross-examination, where he was asked about
the requirements to obtain a CTP. At page 3264 of the transcript, the following appears:
Q. When you arrived on the scene, if you were 18 years of
age, you were alive, and a Canadian citizen, you qualified. Is that
about right