Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 221
[840] Mr. Madill appeared oblivious of his duty, according to Mr. Sewell, to accord “high
priority” to SYFC. There are many other examples of this negligence, even remarkably, an email
dated January 29, 1999, where Ms. Guscott exhibits confusion and lack of awareness of the volume
of timber that the mill had been asking for since 1995; see Exhibit P-79, Tab 103.
[841] There is also substantial evidence that the process was delayed by the bad faith conduct of
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
Departmental staff. I infer from this evidence that the DIAND managers failed to adequately
supervise the employees under their charge; for example see Exhibits P-47; and P-79, Tab 71 and
Tab 302. This flows as a foreseeable consequence from the failure of the senior staff to familiarize
themselves with the basic information necessary to perform their duties.
[842] It is also clear that there was an unfounded, and unknown to the Plaintiffs, level of animosity
on the part of Ms. Guscott with respect to the Plaintiffs. In this regard, I find that mismanagement of
the DIAND personnel, including a failure to remove Ms. Guscott from the SYFC file, constituted
conduct that did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable public servant.
[843] Mr. Sewell, the most senior public servant in the Regional Office, was aware of Ms.
Guscott’s behaviour as she sent him numerous emails that reflected her dislike of the Plaintiffs. In
concluding his initial evidence at trial, Mr. Sewell said that he would have done things differently.
Q. Okay. I don’t in any way want to demean or belittle you. But I
take it that you would acknowledge that if you had things to do over
again while you were there, you would have done many things
differently in relation to these issues.
A. I would agree with that, sir, yes.