Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 233
[887] Unfortunately, for whatever reason, KFR did not build such a mill. However, the Plaintiffs
did. I find that the Plaintiffs’ mill was the only mill of sufficient capacity to give effect to the
Defendant’s aforementioned policies.
[888] This mill was the largest private employer in Yukon. It had an entirely local workforce,
relied on local loggers, except for one instance, and had a guaranteed level of First Nations
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
employees. In fact, the mill was partially owned by LFN through its operating entity KFR. This mill
had also proven its ability to both harvest and process timber.
[889] I also take note that when the RFP was finally released these factors were among those that
were to be considered in selection of successful proponents. There was no other person, company or
corporation who could meet these requirements better than the Plaintiffs.
[890] The proximity of the relationship and the lengths that the Department undertook to ensure a
wood supply to this mill cannot be overlooked. I also refer to the meeting of April 7, 1999, when it
was actually proposed that the Plaintiffs’ CTPs would be issued on the land that would later
encompass the THA.
[891] In my opinion, it defies common sense and reason to suggest that the Plaintiffs would not
have been among the successful proponents. It also defies common sense and reason to suggest that
the Plaintiffs would be unable to claim for the inordinate delay that caused them to close the mill.