Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 246 [936] The Defendant can avoid this prima facie duty of care by policy considerations such as indeterminate liability; see Hercules Managements. Further, there is no liability for the policy decisions of government; see Premakumaran, at para. 20. [937] As I have discussed above, there are no policy considerations that should exempt the Defendant from the prima facie duty of care. There was no indeterminate liability as this was a 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) specific representation made at a scheduled meeting, to two specific parties. [938] The Defendant had a policy of encouraging economic development in the forest industry. The decision to have a system of long-term tenure is also a policy decision. This action is not a challenge to a political or legislative decision. On the facts of this case, I find that the representation made on July 15, 1997 was the implementation of the Defendant’s policies, and was not a policy decision in and of itself. The implementation of a policy is an operational decision and not exempt from a duty of care. (ii) The Representation [939] The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant made a representation that if a mill were built, an adequate supply for the operation of that mill would be made available. [940] According to the evidence adduced, this representation was made at the “due diligence” meeting held on July 15, 1997 when Mr. Alan Kerr and Mr. Brian Kerr, on behalf of LPL, and Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fehr went to Whitehorse to meet with representatives of DIAND to discuss the
Page: 247 proposed mill project. Mr. Monty and Mr. Gladstone attended this meeting on behalf of DIAND. Only Mr. Monty testified at trial about this meeting, on behalf of DIAND. [941] The representation at that time, that is July 15, 1997, was made to LPL. SYFC was not incorporated until some months later. However, the relationship between LPL and the Defendant had begun in April 1996, with the first meeting between LPL and employees of DIAND in 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) Whitehorse on April 18, 1996. As I have said before, that relationship was encouraged and nourished over the ensuing months by DIAND. It is unnecessary for me to find any “consummation” of the relationship, it was a continuing relationship with a deepening alignment of interests between LPL and the Defendant. [942] While the letter of March 13, 1997 to LPL from Mr. Irwin, then the Minister, figures as part of the background and context, the meeting in July 1997 was critical. It was on the basis of that meeting that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fehr, on behalf of the B.I.D. Group, decided to participate. [943] Mr. Spencer testified that by this time, he had already looked at business pro formas to see if the project was worth the time and investment. In his opinion, there were two critical benchmarks that had to be met in deciding to go forward. They were log supply and price, and lumber recovery and market. Although the B.I.D. Group was interested in the project, there was lingering concern about the security of fibre.
- Page 195 and 196: Page: 195 inordinate delay, that in
- Page 197 and 198: Page: 197 industry need, promises m
- Page 199 and 200: Page: 199 … Industry is not stupi
- Page 201 and 202: Page: 201 offered by Mr. Fillmore i
- Page 203 and 204: Page: 203 • Uncertainties associa
- Page 205 and 206: Page: 205 available sustainable tim
- Page 207 and 208: Page: 207 [787] On August 9, 2000,
- Page 209 and 210: Page: 209 [796] On the basis of the
- Page 211 and 212: Page: 211 [805] In preparation for
- Page 213 and 214: Page: 213 [810] This is an extraord
- Page 215 and 216: Page: 215 inferences, to be sure, c
- Page 217 and 218: Page: 217 occurrences but occurred
- Page 219 and 220: Page: 219 [831] Of particular impor
- Page 221 and 222: Page: 221 [840] Mr. Madill appeared
- Page 223 and 224: Page: 223 evidence of the Defendant
- Page 225 and 226: Page: 225 an inference of causation
- Page 227 and 228: Page: 227 [860] The Defendant drew
- Page 229 and 230: Page: 229 [869] This conduct, inclu
- Page 231 and 232: Page: 231 [878] In the result, I fi
- Page 233 and 234: Page: 233 [887] Unfortunately, for
- Page 235 and 236: Page: 235 [897] As I understand the
- Page 237 and 238: Page: 237 [905] Throughout 1998, th
- Page 239 and 240: Page: 239 James Moore. That meeting
- Page 241 and 242: Page: 241 391605 B.C. Ltd. was give
- Page 243 and 244: Page: 243 (3) The representor must
- Page 245: Page: 245 [932] For the reasons not
- Page 249 and 250: Page: 249 [949] Mr. Fehr’s eviden
- Page 251 and 252: Page: 251 commitments and they’ve
- Page 253 and 254: Page: 253 observations of his manne
- Page 255 and 256: Page: 255 [973] As well, the fact t
- Page 257 and 258: Page: 257 all of its commitments. T
- Page 259 and 260: Page: 259 JUSTICE: Mr. Nault is not
- Page 261 and 262: Page: 261 [996] Moreover, the evide
- Page 263 and 264: Page: 263 (b) Was the representatio
- Page 265 and 266: Page: 265 Thus, where an advising p
- Page 267 and 268: Page: 267 Q. And you understood tho
- Page 269 and 270: Page: 269 considering the balance o
- Page 271 and 272: Page: 271 was withheld addressed th
- Page 273 and 274: Page: 273 [1037] Was that reliance
- Page 275 and 276: Page: 275 build a mill was consider
- Page 277 and 278: Page: 277 [1052] As a result, I fin
- Page 279 and 280: Page: 279 servants. That was a subj
- Page 281 and 282: Page: 281 [1068] As I understand th
- Page 283 and 284: Page: 283 contract. Liability can a
- Page 285 and 286: Page: 285 [1084] Mr. Alan Kerr and
- Page 287 and 288: Page: 287 [1093] Given the nature o
- Page 289 and 290: Page: 289 [1096] The Plaintiffs sub
- Page 291 and 292: Page: 291 decision in Daulia Ltd. v
- Page 293 and 294: Page: 293 which are commonly endeav
- Page 295 and 296: Page: 295 [1115] The Defendant reli
Page: 247<br />
proposed mill project. Mr. Monty and Mr. Gladstone attended this meeting on behalf of DIAND.<br />
Only Mr. Monty testified at trial about this meeting, on behalf of DIAND.<br />
[941] The representation at that time, that is July 15, 1997, was made to LPL. SYFC was not<br />
incorporated until some months later. However, the relationship between LPL and the Defendant<br />
had begun in April 1996, with the first meeting between LPL and employees of DIAND in<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
Whitehorse on April 18, 1996. As I have said before, that relationship was encouraged and<br />
nourished over the ensuing months by DIAND. It is unnecessary for me to find any<br />
“consummation” of the relationship, it was a continuing relationship with a deepening alignment of<br />
interests between LPL and the Defendant.<br />
[942] While the letter of March 13, 1997 to LPL from Mr. Irwin, then the Minister, figures as part<br />
of the background and context, the meeting in July 1997 was critical. It was on the basis of that<br />
meeting that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fehr, on behalf of the B.I.D. Group, decided to participate.<br />
[943] Mr. Spencer testified that by this time, he had already looked at business pro formas to see if<br />
the project was worth the time and investment. In his opinion, there were two critical benchmarks<br />
that had to be met in deciding to go forward. They were log supply and price, and lumber recovery<br />
and market. Although the B.I.D. Group was interested in the project, there was lingering concern<br />
about the security of fibre.