Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 270
[1024] I find that highly relevant information, that is the Department’s concern that the timber
inventory was too high, should have been disclosed to LPL at the July 15, 1997 meeting. It was not.
[1025] The evidence is clear that the joint venturers were aware that there were concerns with the
timber supply. It was for that exact purpose that this July 1997 “due diligence” meeting occurred.
However, as a result of the assurances given at this meeting the decision was made to proceed with
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
the Watson Lake sawmill project.
[1026] In considering the evidence, I find that the Plaintiffs became aware in 1998 of the proposed
reduction in the harvest ceiling for Y02 and Y03 from 350,000 m 3 per year to 128,000 m 3 per year;
see the Response to the Request to Admit and there is other evidence to that effect. I conclude that
this state of knowledge is consistent with the failure of the Defendant to reveal their concerns about
the inventory.
[1027] It is also important to remember that, as I have previously discussed, the Defendant had
publicly relied upon the impugned inventory. This public reliance makes the Defendant’s failure to
disclose highly relevant information within the exclusive control even more egregious.
[1028] Considering that the very purpose of the July 1997 meeting was to determine if timber
would be provided to a proposed mill, given the significant investment proposed, and the
continually developing proximate relationship with LPL, the Defendant was obliged to have
informed LPL that the Department believed that the inventory was too high. The information that