Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 281
[1068] As I understand the Defendant’s argument, she relies upon A.O. Farms to argue that LPL
should not have relied upon the representations of the Government. In A.O. Farms, Mr. Justice
Hugessen stated at para. 9, that:
Without wishing to sound unduly cynical, I would say that very few
people today would consider that it was reasonable to rely on
promises made by politicians especially in a pre-election period.
[1069] It is unclear to me if the Defendant extends this argument to the Department’s employees or
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
only the Minister. Regardless, in Avco Financial Services Realty Ltd. v. Norman (2003), 64 O.R.
(3d) 239 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2003), 68 O.R. (3d) xvii, the Court said at para. 27:
…Indeed, if the allegation of contributory negligence is based on the
contention that the injured party acted unreasonably in relying on the
misstatement, the question will already have been determined on the
main claim, and the plea of contributory negligence will not succeed.
…
[1070] I have already determined that LPL reasonably relied on the representation of the Defendant
and that it was reasonably foreseeable that it would do so. This argument is without merit.
[1071] Insofar as the Defendant spent considerable energy discussing the fitness of the mill, I will
repeat that this was not a defence that was pled. Nevertheless, I have found above that on the basis
of the evidence, the mill was adequately designed and constructed.
[1072] Finally, with respect to reasonableness of re-opening the mill, I have previously found that
this action was reasonable. The Defendant took great efforts to encourage the Plaintiffs to remain in