Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 216
[818] The record is replete with examples of the bad faith basis of the conduct of the Department’s
employees. Insofar as any decision or conduct may be considered “true policy”, I find that it was
based on bad faith and there is no exemption from the duty of care.
(b) Conclusion on Duty of Care
[819] Having found that a prima facie duty of care existed due to the direct and proximate
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and having found that there are no policy
reasons to negate that duty, I find that the Defendant owed the Plaintiffs a duty of care.
[820] Regardless, any possible exemption from the imposition of a duty of care for policy reasons
is vitiated by the bad faith of the Defendant’s servants.
(iii)
Breach of the Standard of Care
[821] In Keeping v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 226 D.L.R. (4th) 285 (Nfld. S.C.) another
decision of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division, the Court said that the
standard of care to be expected from a Crown agent is to perform his duties in a reasonably
competent manner.
[822] The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant was negligent in the manner in which it issued the
CTPs and that the negligence included delays in the permitting process. Those delays impacted
upon the ability of the Plaintiffs to acquire wood to feed its mill. The delays were not single