Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 261
[996] Moreover, the evidence of Mr. Sewell was that he too had been informed, by the forest
industry, that the Department had told members of the industry that if they built a mill then they
would get tenure; see page 4371 of the transcript.
[997] The Defendant argued that the representation in this case was a future promise and not a
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
representation of current facts. This argument cannot succeed.
[998] I find, on the totality of the evidence, that the representation that “if you build a mill, we will
give you timber” contained the implied representations that there was an existing commitment to
provide a long-term adequate volume of timber to whoever built a mill in southeast Yukon, together
with the ability to provide the timber; see Cognos and Moin v. Collingwood (Township) (2000), 135
O.A.C. 278 (C.A.).
[999] This implied representation is in reality a statement as to existing facts, not merely a future
promise.
(a) Was the representation misleading, inaccurate or untrue
[1000] I am satisfied that the representation made at that time was misleading, insofar as the agents
and employees of DIAND knew that as of July 1997, the Department was not in a position to make
that volume of wood available to LPL, as a proponent of the mill. Further, it was untrue, as is clear
from the evidence that Plaintiffs’ mill did not receive an adequate supply of timber to operate.