Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 228
these reasons, while it is true that there was 215,000 m 3 harvested and delivered to the mill, between
May 1999 and June 2000, I find that it was “not an adequate supply.”
[865] The Defendant did not plead that the mill was inadequately designed or constructed.
Nevertheless, on the totality of the evidence, I accept that the design of the mill was appropriate.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[866] I am confounded by the Defendant’s arguments relative to the alleged inadequacy of the
mill. It is a fact, relevant to this case, that the Defendant pushed KFR into the joint venture that
owns the Watson Lake mill. It is also a fact that the Defendant authorized the use of trust funds for
that purpose. Under these circumstances, if the mill were inadequate, there would be serious
consequences for the Defendant as trustee of those funds.
[867] The evidence of Mr. Sewell was that he never considered the mill inadequate. In crossexamination,
he conceded that if he had felt that the mill was unsuitable, he would never have
recommended the additional expenditure of $5.5 million on the mill through the Regional
Partnership Fund & Major Business Projects.
[868] Moreover, the recommendation under the Regional Partnership Fund & Major Business
Projects stated that the mill had management and experienced employees in place. Mr. Sewell, in
cross-examination, accepted that he would not have made the recommendation if he felt that there
was “poor management in place” at the mill. This recommendation is Exhibit P-79, Tab 334.