Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 260
[991] I draw attention to the email dated November 7, 1996, sent by Mr. Ivanski, in his capacity as
RDG, to Ottawa to Mr. Doughty, special assistant to Minister Irwin and to Mr. James Moore, ADM.
This email, which is Exhibit P-79, Tab 38, has already been referred to in my Reasons.
[992] By November 7, 1996, Mr. Ivanski had received a scaled down proposal from LPL for the
proposed facility in Watson Lake. He communicated with the Minister’s office in Ottawa asking for
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
guidance with respect to that most recent proposal, using the language “positive or negative vibes”.
[993] At no time did anyone from DIAND give “negative vibes” to LPL. On the contrary, there
were continuing inducements. It is tempting to draw the conclusion that, as Mr. Nault suggested,
DIAND was “almost suggesting that there’s not going to be an industry but not really telling you
straight up”. However, it is not my task to draw that conclusion at large, my task is limited to
adjudicating the claims advanced by LPL against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation.
[994] These remarks of Mr. Nault are consistent with the evidence of the Plaintiffs and the
evidence from the Defendant’s own documents. This evidence from Mr. Nault meets the criteria of
circumstantial evidence to which I referred earlier.
[995] The Defendant had the opportunity to call evidence to answer the questions, inquiries and
inferences that she must have known would be raised by this record of remarks made by a Minister
of DIAND, relating to the issues in play in this litigation. She did not do so. Accordingly, she must
live with the consequences of her choices in that regard.