Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 259
JUSTICE: Mr. Nault is not going to be a witness at all Is that
correct, Mr. Whittle
MR. WHITTLE: That’s correct, My Lady.
[988] In my opinion, Mr. Nault was a crucial witness who could have provided an explanation of
this highly relevant and damaging evidence as recorded in Exhibit P-79, Tab 357, quoted above. I
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
draw the natural inference that his evidence would have been detrimental to the Defendant’s case;
see Milliken & Company et al. and WCC Containers Sales Ltd.
[989] I draw an adverse inference from his failure to testify when the hour of his evidence had
been accommodated. I observe the suggestion in the record that Mr. Nault had been physically
present in Vancouver on the weekend preceding his anticipated appearance on Monday, June 2 nd . I
refer in this regard to the cross-examination of Mr. Sewell on June 2 nd , transcript page 4269, lines
20 to 22.
[990] In the second place, I note Mr. Nault’s specific reference to “five years ago”. This is no
coincidence, in my opinion, having regard to the facts in the record of this trial, notably the fact that
five years prior to the meeting, LPL was already in a proximate relationship with the Defendant,
arising in relation to the Plaintiffs’ mill in Watson Lake.