Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 256 A. Yeah, I would because the context of that statement, anywhere its read, is – again, I was in Watson Lake before this project came into existence, and what the poor performance of the past negated the government from giving that type of upfront commitment. It was always basically a, you show us and we’ll do it type of scenario. That’s not a guarantee. That is not a guarantee. We have to perform and we understood that, and that is the context of those statements, in every document that you see it, is that their actions, the government actions, it was always based upon our corporation’s performance and in doing what we said we would do. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [977] I find that this statement is consistent with Mr. Kerr’s testimony about the July 15, 1997 meeting. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the representation was made on July 15, 1997. [978] My finding as to this representation is also supported by events which occurred at the October 1, 1999, meeting between representatives of the forest industry and Minister Nault in Whitehorse. Ms. Clark attended on behalf of the mill. Mr. Nault, Mr. Sewell and Ms. Guscott represented DIAND. At this meeting, June Clark reiterated that SYFC needs certainty of wood supply and needs a volume of 200,000 m 3 for a viable mill. A summary of this meeting is found in Exhibit D-81, Tab 257. [979] In her presentation, a copy of which was entered at Exhibit D-11, Tab 203, Ms. Clark asserted that the Department had given “clear direction to the company over 2 years ago that there would be no commitment to a THA in the Yukon until we first built a facility. We built the facility and are operating it in Watson Lake”. She further asserted that the mill had met or over-delivered on
Page: 257 all of its commitments. There is no indication that the Minister disputed either assertion. The documents in Exhibit D-11 were entered for the truth and accuracy of their contents. [980] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities and having regard to the evidence before me, that in the meeting of November 14, 2001, with representatives of the forest industry in Whitehorse, Minister Nault admitted that a promise had been made to supply wood if a mill was built. I find that 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) Minister Nault admitted that a promise had been made. The transcript, entered as Exhibit P-79, Tab 357, shows the following exchange between Minister Nault and Mr. Peterson, the owner of another Watson Lake sawmill: Peterson: We didn’t roll into town and fall off a turnip truck, thinking that we were going to get tenure just because we built a saw mill. We were told we would get tenure if we had a saw mill there. Nault: I know you were. [981] In a later exchange at that meeting and recorded in the same transcript, Minister Nault says: Nault: But I can’t live with the argument that we’re putting the squeeze on the industry so bad that there is no industry; because if we’d have done that, we should have done that five years ago. We should have just said, “Forget it, guys. Don’t come around here and spend all this money, because we’re not have an industry.” But is seems to me so far we’re almost suggesting there’s not going to be an industry but not really telling you straight up. [982] I have two observations about the remarks of Mr. Nault, as recorded at the meeting held on November 14, 2001.
- 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 and 246: Page: 245 [932] For the reasons not
- Page 247 and 248: Page: 247 proposed mill project. Mr
- 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: Page: 255 [973] As well, the fact 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 297 and 298: Page: 297 [1123] With respect to th
- Page 299 and 300: Page: 299 adequate supply of timber
- Page 301 and 302: Page: 301 In the circumstances of t
- Page 303 and 304: Page: 303 4. Breach of Fiduciary Du
- Page 305 and 306: Page: 305 place the Crown in the un
Page: 256<br />
A. Yeah, I would because the context of that statement,<br />
anywhere its read, is – again, I was in Watson Lake before this<br />
project came into existence, and what the poor performance of the<br />
past negated the government from giving that type of upfront<br />
commitment. It was always basically a, you show us and we’ll do it<br />
type of scenario. That’s not a guarantee. That is not a guarantee. We<br />
have to perform and we understood that, and that is the context of<br />
those statements, in every document that you see it, is that their<br />
actions, the government actions, it was always based upon our<br />
corporation’s performance and in doing what we said we would do.<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
[977] I find that this statement is consistent with Mr. Kerr’s testimony about the July 15, 1997<br />
meeting. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the representation was made on July 15,<br />
1997.<br />
[978] My finding as to this representation is also supported by events which occurred at the<br />
October 1, 1999, meeting between representatives of the forest industry and Minister Nault in<br />
Whitehorse. Ms. Clark attended on behalf of the mill. Mr. Nault, Mr. Sewell and Ms. Guscott<br />
represented DIAND. At this meeting, June Clark reiterated that SYFC needs certainty of wood<br />
supply and needs a volume of 200,000 m 3 for a viable mill. A summary of this meeting is found in<br />
Exhibit D-81, Tab 257.<br />
[979] In her presentation, a copy of which was entered at Exhibit D-11, Tab 203, Ms. Clark<br />
asserted that the Department had given “clear direction to the company over 2 years ago that there<br />
would be no commitment to a THA in the Yukon until we first built a facility. We built the facility<br />
and are operating it in Watson Lake”. She further asserted that the mill had met or over-delivered on