Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 252
[960] Mr. Gladstone was not called by the Defendant to testify. Mr. Sewell, the Defendant’s
representative for the trial, testified that he made no effort to locate Mr. Gladstone.
[961] Mr. Monty testified for the Defendant. His evidence in examination-in-chief was that he did
not know who Mr. Fehr was and he was unsure who Mr. Spencer was, except to say that he was
somehow involved in the project; see p. 3034 of the transcript. He confirmed that he and Mr.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
Gladstone were the representatives of the Defendant present at that meeting. He did not remember
if Mr. Fehr, Mr. Brian Kerr or Mr. Alan Kerr attended. However, he believed that Mr. Spencer had
attended and, in a courtroom identification, said that Mr. Don Oulton was present at the meeting.
[962] Mr. Monty said that he would have told LPL that long-term tenure would require land use
planning and lands claims to be completed. However, he did not remember actually making that
statement and did not recall exactly what was said. He did not recall if there were discussions with
respect to THA or the volume that mill would require. He also did not recall if either he or Mr.
Gladstone had advised LPL that a sawmill had to built before long-term tenure could be awarded. In
effect he had no recollection of this meeting; see pages 3204-3211 of the transcript.
[963] On cross-examination, Mr. Monty agreed that he was satisfied to the best of his knowledge
that he had given whatever recollection he could of that meeting.
[964] Overall, the evidence of Mr. Monty was unsatisfactory. His recollection was very poor to
the point of unreliability. Mr. Monty’s evidence was also internally contradictory. Finally, my