Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 276 [1047] I find that the political and social benefits gained by the Defendant were significant and point towards reasonable reliance on the facts of this case. [1048] In addition to the political and social benefits, it must be remembered that the Government would gain a direct or indirect financial benefit from the mill. The 60/40 Rule required that there be local processing in order to harvest timber. A mill, such as the one discussed at the July 1997 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) meeting, would have dramatically increased the local processing capacity. [1049] An increase in processing capacity would have increased permissible harvesting. The evidence shows that a stumpage royalty was paid on all harvested timber. The development of this mill had the potential to significantly increase the royalties received by the Defendant by increasing the volume of timber that could be harvested. [1050] The RIAS to SOR/95-387 estimated that regulatory changes that increased stumpage fees would generate an average of $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 per year in revenue for the Government. This regulatory change was one in the series of responses to the “Green Rush”. [1051] A later RIAS to SOR/95-580, which implemented the 60/40 Rule, noted that delays in harvesting permits would result in the Crown losing $3.7 million in stumpage. This statement in the RIAS was made before there was a mill that could process the remainder of the AAC in that year. Given the two references in different RIAS, I draw the conclusion that these stumpage fees were a consideration for the Defendant.
Page: 277 [1052] As a result, I find that there was a direct or indirect financial benefit to the Defendant. (2) Professionals with special skill, judgment or knowledge [1053] The agents of the Defendant who attended that meeting and made the representation, Mr. Monty and Mr. Gladstone, were professionals, persons possessing special skills, judgment or 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) knowledge. Mr. Monty was the Regional Manager of Forest Resources. Mr. Gladstone was the Operations Forester in the Forest Resources Group, working with Mr. Monty. [1054] Furthermore, in my mind that can be no question that the forestry staff of the Department had special judgment or knowledge. In this regard, I adopt the following statement of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Meates at page 335: …Furthermore it was both a situation where the likelihood of the translation of policy into action was peculiarly within Government knowledge and entirely under Government control and also one where it was essential for the shareholders to know whether they could responsibly embark upon and later continue with the mission. As such I find that the Crown servants were professionals with special skill, knowledge and judgment. (3) Information given within the course of the Defendant’s business [1055] I am equally convinced that the representation was provided in the course of the Defendant’s business. These were representatives from the Regional Office of DIAND whose
- 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 and 266: Page: 265 Thus, where an advising p
- Page 267 and 268: Page: 267 Q. And you understood tho
- 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: Page: 275 build a mill was consider
- 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 317 and 318: Page: 317 [1188] It is not disputed
- Page 319 and 320: Page: 319 …The difficulty in fixi
- Page 321 and 322: Page: 321 [1202] In closing argumen
- Page 323 and 324: Page: 323 opinion testimony on the
- Page 325 and 326: Page: 325 that it “came directly
Page: 277<br />
[1052] As a result, I find that there was a direct or indirect financial benefit to the Defendant.<br />
(2) Professionals with special skill, judgment or knowledge<br />
[1053] The agents of the Defendant who attended that meeting and made the representation, Mr.<br />
Monty and Mr. Gladstone, were professionals, persons possessing special skills, judgment or<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
knowledge. Mr. Monty was the Regional Manager of Forest Resources. Mr. Gladstone was the<br />
Operations Forester in the Forest Resources Group, working with Mr. Monty.<br />
[1054] Furthermore, in my mind that can be no question that the forestry staff of the Department<br />
had special judgment or knowledge. In this regard, I adopt the following statement of the New<br />
Zealand <strong>Court</strong> of Appeal in Meates at page 335:<br />
…Furthermore it was both a situation where the likelihood of the<br />
translation of policy into action was peculiarly within Government<br />
knowledge and entirely under Government control and also one<br />
where it was essential for the shareholders to know whether they<br />
could responsibly embark upon and later continue with the mission.<br />
As such I find that the Crown servants were professionals with special skill, knowledge and<br />
judgment.<br />
(3) Information given within the course of the Defendant’s business<br />
[1055] I am equally convinced that the representation was provided in the course of the<br />
Defendant’s business. These were representatives from the Regional Office of DIAND whose
Change language