Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 253
observations of his manner of testifying with respect to this issue lead me to conclude that his
evidence is untrustworthy and will be given very little weight. There is no issue of unfairness to this
witness because all assertions that have been posited by the Plaintiffs were put to Mr. Monty by the
Defendant’s own counsel and he had no recollection.
[965] The testimony of the Defendant’s witness concerning the meeting of July 15 th was
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
unconvincing and there is no evidence that contradicts the LPL’s version of events. I also take note
of the failure of the Defendant to call Mr. Gladstone and the failure to cross-examine the Plaintiffs’
witnesses about the statements made in the July 1997 meeting. As a result, I draw an adverse
inference that this evidence would have been harmful to the Defendant’s case; see Milliken &
Company et al. and WCC Containers Sales Ltd.
[966] I find, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Gladstone made a representation, and a
commitment, at the July 1997 meeting that if a mill was built that LPL would receive the timber to
operate it. This finding is consistent with the totality of the evidence.
[967] As I have discussed above in my observations of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, they testified in a
straightforward and honest manner. Their testimony is consistent with the other evidence in the
record.
[968] My finding, as to the representation is supported by the factual context as it was known to
DIAND at the time. The THA that had been assigned to KFR was subject to the condition that KFR