Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 217
occurrences but occurred over a period of time. This created a situation, as in Brewer Bros., where
the negligence was not a single act or omission at a precise moment in time, but was cumulative.
[823] The Plaintiffs through their Response to Request to Admit have defined “material time” as
the period beginning on April 1, 1999 and concluding on August 4, 2000. The “material time”
received little mention during the trial; see pages 144 to 149 and 5732 and 5733. It seems that the
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
“material time” relates to the CTP process.
[824] On the basis of the evidence submitted, in particular the documentary evidence, I find that
there was cumulative negligence in the present case. I will commence by discussing two reports
which are in the record.
[825] First, the KPMG Report, entered as Exhibit P-47, was prepared for DIAND to “evaluate and
make recommendations with regard to the timber permitting processes used in the Yukon.” It was
prepared by performing interviews solely with Federal Government personnel. KPMG interviewed
persons internal to DIAND, including Mr. Monty, Mr. Ballantyne, Mr. Kennedy and others.
Additionally, KPMG interviewed Mr. Malcolm Florence, Counsel, Group Head, with the
Department of Justice in Whitehorse.
[826] The report noted that there had been three main issues: first, client dissatisfaction stemming
from “the timeliness of timber permit issuance and the granting of authority to commence timber
harvesting; second, “Crown liability or exposure of the government to civil action” for failing to