Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 232
[883] I reject that argument for two reasons. It seems to me that the Defendant has missed a subtle
distinction in the Plaintiffs’ case. The evidence demonstrates that the Plaintiffs built their mill after
having been told by the Minister that a new process would be completed in two to three years.
There is no question that the process was undertaken. The heart of this claim is the inordinate delay
in implementing the policy decision to have long-term tenure.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[884] This is not an attack on a policy decision, as the claim relates to the implementation of the
policy. Regardless, as I have remarked earlier, inordinate delay is not a policy. There is also
evidence of bad faith in delaying the process.
[885] Further, it is my opinion that the Defendant’s argument fails to take a common sense and
pragmatic approach to the evidence. It is a highly technical approach that ignores the basic facts.
The Department had a policy in place that required local processing capacity or there could be no
timber harvesting. This policy had the express purpose of encouraging economic development, in
furtherance of the mandate set out in the DIAND Act.
[886] Specifically, it is clear that the Defendant wanted a sawmill in Watson Lake. Further, the
evidence shows that the Defendant was advised, by a consultant, that a mill with very similar
design, capacity, products and markets as the Plaintiffs’ mill was the appropriate course of action;
see Exhibit P-79, Tab 55.