Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 271
was withheld addressed the nature and extent of the timber inventory. It was insufficient that LPL
knew that the inventory could change.
[1029] On the facts of this case, I find that there was a concern within the Regional Office that the
inventory, as produced in the Sterling Wood report, was too high. As such the Regional Office
should have informed LPL of this fact at the July 15, 1997 meeting. The failure to do so breached
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
the standard of care.
[1030] This finding is not based on the fact that the Defendant might change the AAC, which is a
discretionary policy decision in the authority of the Defendant. My finding is based on the fact that
the Defendant had exclusive knowledge that she believed that the inventory was too high. The
inventory was relied upon by LPL in formulating its business plans. Just because the AAC is
derived from the inventory does not mean that a change in the inventory is a “policy decision”
which may be immune from review.
[1031] Moreover, I note that Mr. Monty, the only witness for the Defendant who attended the July
1997 meeting, testified that he did not have the authority to make the representation that was made.
In light of my findings, that the reliance was foreseeable, that there would be reliance, and that the
Defendant knew that LPL was basing its planned business plans on the existing inventory, I find
that on the facts of this case that the standard of care was breached.