Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 262
[1001] The Defendant drew the Court’s attention to the fact that mill had received 215,000 m 3 in
the period of May 1999-August 2000. It is clear from the Defendant’s representative, Mr. Sewell,
and the documentary evidence, that the Department was aware that the volume of timber necessary
to operate the mill was 200,000 m 3 per year.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[1002] As I have discussed above, the available timber was inadequate due to the very small log
profile. I attribute this inadequacy to the conduct of the Department. I find that the representation,
that an adequate supply of timber would be provided, was untrue.
[1003] In the summer of 2000, the Plaintiffs began again to experience difficulties in securing a
timber supply. They also learned that the timeline for THA RFPs would not be met.
[1004] As explained by Mr. Justice Linden, in Spinks v. Canada, [1996] 2 F.C. 563 (C.A.), at para.
29:
…A person may be "misled" by a failure to divulge as much as by
advice that is inaccurate or untrue. In the same way that absent
information can be "erroneous", as discussed above, missing
information can be misleading…
[1005] I conclude that the representation made was untrue or misleading because the timber
supplied was inadequate. It should be noted that the inadequacy of the timber was the result of
DIAND’s own actions. This representation was also untrue or misleading because as of August
2000, the shortage of timber supply resulted in the mill closing for good.