Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 236
[901] The same question arises in the present case. Did the Plaintiffs act reasonably when they
reopened the mill in April 1999, following its closure in December 1998 Did they act reasonably in
continuing to operate the mill from April 1999 until the final closure in August 2000
[902] In Atlantic Leasing, the Court, at para. 67, accepted the trial judge’s findings that:
…If, for whatever reason, it became apparent to the decisionmakers
that they could not act on the issue in a timely way, there
was an obligation, at the very least, to disabuse Atlantic of its
continued expectation that a decision was forthcoming so that
Atlantic could act expeditiously with respect to possibly seeking
other tenants for the space and thereby save the building. It must
be remembered that the trial judge concluded that “in the absence
of a communication from Government to the effect that the lease
was in doubt" it would have been unreasonable for Atlantic to have
given Government a notice to quit; rather, continuing to wait was,
in the circumstances, "an entirely reasonable" position to take. I
agree with that assessment.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[903] In my opinion, in this case it was also entirely reasonable for the Plaintiffs to “stay the
course”.
[904] LPL had been informed in 1997 that a process for long-term tenure was underway and
would be completed in two to three years. The Plaintiffs knew that this was a reasonable time-frame
to complete such a process. LPL also knew that DIAND had approved a THA for LFN in
approximately six months. The Plaintiffs had made a significant capital investment in erecting the
mill at Watson Lake in 1997 - 1998. The mill operated for almost three months between October
and December 1998 when it closed for lack of wood.