Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 258
[983] In the first place, while this exchange does not specifically relate to the promise made by the
Defendant to LPL, it is consistent with and strongly supports their assertion that such a promise was
made to them as well.
[984] Mr. Sewell, upon being called to testify on behalf of the Defendant, said that the
“commitment” mentioned by Mr. Nault was a commitment to a process.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[985] This is a critical point.
[986] With respect, Mr. Sewell is not the witness to say what Mr. Nault meant. Mr. Nault is that
witness and he was not called to testify, even though arrangements had been made to accommodate
his schedule. Counsel for the Plaintiffs had agreed to defer the commencement of his crossexamination
to allow Mr. Nault to testify. The following appears at page 4206 of the transcript for
Friday, May 30, 2008:
If it suits Mr. Whittle and the Crown, we will hear the evidence of
Mr. Nault before Mr. Sali begins his cross-examination of Mr.
Sewell. And it’s the cross-examination, because his was a prior - - his
prior examination was an examination, albeit conducted as it was
under the combined effect of the Canada Evidence Act and the
British Columbia Rules of Procedure.
[987] No explanation was offered or provided by the Defendant concerning the failure to call Mr.
Nault to the stand, as appears from the transcript at page 4207 for Monday, June 2, 2008 as follows:
MR. SALI: I understand, My Lady, that Mr. Nault will not be a
witness, as a consequence of which we are moving to the crossexamination
of Mr. Sewell.