Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 266 person or persons associated with the Department had misgivings about the Draft Sterling Wood Report. [1012] Mr. Ivanski was cross-examined about the Sterling Wood Report. The following evidence about this report is found at page 2696 of the transcript: Q. While -- I'm going to suggest to you that while it had been completed, it hadn't -- simply hadn't been formally implemented. Correct That's what it says If – 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) A. I'm not quite sure -- there's a big difference between having a report prepared and implementing the recommendations of the report, and I'm not sure that stating that was simply not implemented is fully accurate. We had input. The department had received some input on this report. The recommendations had not been implemented, and there is a number of reasons that could have led to that conclusion. (Emphasis added) [1013] It was more than simply “input” about the report. Later evidence of Mr. Ivanski showed that there were concerns with the inventory that was included in the Sterling Wood Report. The following evidence about the inventory within the Sterling Wood Report is found at pages 2702- 2703 of the transcript: Q. So the inventory we should assume as determined in total is in excess of 1.6 million cubic metres. A. Correct. Q. Thank you. Now, what you then have at page 795 of the same documents, is as follows. Under the heading "Annual allowable cut," you have two scenarios presented. Do you see that A. Correct.
Page: 267 Q. And you understood those to be the two options then being considered. Correct A. That we tabled for discussion, yes. Q. Now, before we go on to any further documents, in terms of the issue of the inventory, or the sustained yield, I take it, sir, that nothing changed as to your information bank through to the time that you began your discussions with LPL in 1996. Do you agree A. In terms of the information available to me – 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) Q. Yes. A. -- no, but there were questions raised about the information that I had. (Emphasis added) [1014] In a later response found at page 2772 of the transcript, Mr. Ivanski said the following about the inventory: A. With one caveat and that was by that time, in my mind, there was significant question as to the accuracy or the reliability of this data, and that's why I went to headquarters and secured additional funding to do photo interpretation and timber cruising, et cetera, to come up with a scientific basis to say what the annual allowable cut should be. [1015] As previously noted, the Sterling Wood Report was never implemented by DIAND. The failure to implement the Sterling Wood Report is in my opinion consistent with the concerns of the Department that the inventory was too high. [1016] Notwithstanding the underlying concerns with the inventory, the Regional Office relied upon the Sterling Wood Report inventory in drafting the response for the Minister to the petition of the Yukon Forest Coalition that was presented to Parliament on July 6, 1995. The response to that
- Page 215 and 216: Page: 215 inferences, to be sure, c
- Page 217 and 218: Page: 217 occurrences but occurred
- Page 219 and 220: Page: 219 [831] Of particular impor
- Page 221 and 222: Page: 221 [840] Mr. Madill appeared
- Page 223 and 224: Page: 223 evidence of the Defendant
- Page 225 and 226: Page: 225 an inference of causation
- Page 227 and 228: Page: 227 [860] The Defendant drew
- Page 229 and 230: Page: 229 [869] This conduct, inclu
- Page 231 and 232: Page: 231 [878] In the result, I fi
- Page 233 and 234: Page: 233 [887] Unfortunately, for
- Page 235 and 236: Page: 235 [897] As I understand the
- Page 237 and 238: Page: 237 [905] Throughout 1998, th
- Page 239 and 240: Page: 239 James Moore. That meeting
- Page 241 and 242: Page: 241 391605 B.C. Ltd. was give
- Page 243 and 244: Page: 243 (3) The representor must
- Page 245 and 246: Page: 245 [932] For the reasons not
- Page 247 and 248: Page: 247 proposed mill project. Mr
- Page 249 and 250: Page: 249 [949] Mr. Fehr’s eviden
- Page 251 and 252: Page: 251 commitments and they’ve
- Page 253 and 254: Page: 253 observations of his manne
- Page 255 and 256: Page: 255 [973] As well, the fact t
- Page 257 and 258: Page: 257 all of its commitments. T
- Page 259 and 260: Page: 259 JUSTICE: Mr. Nault is not
- Page 261 and 262: Page: 261 [996] Moreover, the evide
- Page 263 and 264: Page: 263 (b) Was the representatio
- Page 265: Page: 265 Thus, where an advising p
- Page 269 and 270: Page: 269 considering the balance o
- Page 271 and 272: Page: 271 was withheld addressed th
- Page 273 and 274: Page: 273 [1037] Was that reliance
- Page 275 and 276: Page: 275 build a mill was consider
- Page 277 and 278: Page: 277 [1052] As a result, I fin
- Page 279 and 280: Page: 279 servants. That was a subj
- Page 281 and 282: Page: 281 [1068] As I understand th
- Page 283 and 284: Page: 283 contract. Liability can a
- Page 285 and 286: Page: 285 [1084] Mr. Alan Kerr and
- Page 287 and 288: Page: 287 [1093] Given the nature o
- Page 289 and 290: Page: 289 [1096] The Plaintiffs sub
- Page 291 and 292: Page: 291 decision in Daulia Ltd. v
- Page 293 and 294: Page: 293 which are commonly endeav
- Page 295 and 296: Page: 295 [1115] The Defendant reli
- Page 297 and 298: Page: 297 [1123] With respect to th
- Page 299 and 300: Page: 299 adequate supply of timber
- Page 301 and 302: Page: 301 In the circumstances of t
- Page 303 and 304: Page: 303 4. Breach of Fiduciary Du
- Page 305 and 306: Page: 305 place the Crown in the un
- Page 307 and 308: Page: 307 to injure the plaintiff.
- Page 309 and 310: Page: 309 There are no special dama
- Page 311 and 312: Page: 311 two, which I propose to p
- Page 313 and 314: Page: 313 MR. WHITTLE: I am satisfi
- Page 315 and 316: Page: 315 items thereof may be inac
Page: 266<br />
person or persons associated with the Department had misgivings about the Draft Sterling Wood<br />
Report.<br />
[1012] Mr. Ivanski was cross-examined about the Sterling Wood Report. The following evidence<br />
about this report is found at page 2696 of the transcript:<br />
Q. While -- I'm going to suggest to you that while it had been<br />
completed, it hadn't -- simply hadn't been formally implemented.<br />
Correct That's what it says If –<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
A. I'm not quite sure -- there's a big difference between having a<br />
report prepared and implementing the recommendations of the<br />
report, and I'm not sure that stating that was simply not<br />
implemented is fully accurate. We had input. The department had<br />
received some input on this report. The recommendations had not<br />
been implemented, and there is a number of reasons that could<br />
have led to that conclusion.<br />
(Emphasis added)<br />
[1013] It was more than simply “input” about the report. Later evidence of Mr. Ivanski showed<br />
that there were concerns with the inventory that was included in the Sterling Wood Report. The<br />
following evidence about the inventory within the Sterling Wood Report is found at pages 2702-<br />
2703 of the transcript:<br />
Q. So the inventory we should assume as determined in total is in<br />
excess of 1.6 million cubic metres.<br />
A. Correct.<br />
Q. Thank you. Now, what you then have at page 795 of the same<br />
documents, is as follows. Under the heading "Annual allowable<br />
cut," you have two scenarios presented. Do you see that<br />
A. Correct.
Change language