Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 289
[1096] The Plaintiffs submit that the same principles and analysis apply in the present case. They
say that on the basis of the representation made by the Defendant in the summer of 1997, they went
ahead and built the mill.
[1097] The Defendant is correct that there is no Order in Council granting a THA. The contract
between the parties was not for a THA; it was for a long-term adequate supply of timber. It is not
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
for this Court to tell the parties to a contract how to fulfill their contractual obligations. The
Defendant asserted throughout its relationship with the Plaintiffs that the process of timber supply
was changing. It lay within the power of the Defendant to change the process or seek the necessary
authorization in accordance with her contractual obligations.
[1098] In my opinion, the Defendant was not entitled to fail to take the necessary steps to complete
a contract, and then rely upon its inability to complete the contract. This was particularly so after the
Plaintiffs built the Watson Lake mill.
[1099] It is critical to keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the representation made by the
Defendant. The Defendant needed the Plaintiffs’ mill.
[1100] Mr. Sewell testified that the Regional Office would honour its oral commitments. It is clear
that he knew that the Plaintiffs needed long-term tenure in order to successfully operate their mill.
Further, Mr. Sewell testified that getting an OIC “should be fairly straightforward”.