Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 304 indicium of its existence...It is, in fact, the “golden thread” that unites such related causes of action as breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, unconscionability and negligent misrepresentation”. The Court identified relevant indicators for finding the existence of a fiduciary relationship such as the availability for the unilateral exercise of some discretion or power. [1152] However, I am unable to conclude that the Defendant was acting in a fiduciary relationship 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) in her dealings with the Plaintiffs regarding the supply of timber for the Watson Lake mill. [1153] The legal test is clear, that fiduciary must act in the interests of the beneficiary to the exclusion of its own interests. That obligation cannot be imposed on the Defendant on the facts of this case. The Defendant is mandated to manage the forest resources for the benefit of many, not only for the Plaintiffs. [1154] The Plaintiffs do not claim that they had an exclusive right to an adequate timber supply; their claim is quite specific and limited to a supply of 200,000 m 3 per year. The requirement that a fiduciary must act for the benefit of the Plaintiffs would create a conflict with the discharge of the Defendant’s public law duties in general, an issue that was addressed by Mr. Justice Rothstein (as he then was) in Fairford First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] 2 F.C. 48 (T.D.), at para. 67, as follows: It would place the government in a conflict between its responsibility to act in the public interest and its fiduciary duty of loyalty to the Indian band to the exclusion of other interests. In the absence of legislative or constitutional provisions to the contrary, the law of fiduciary duties, in the Aboriginal context, cannot be interpreted to
Page: 305 place the Crown in the untenable position of having to forego its public law duties when such duties conflict with Indian interests. [1155] While Fairford First Nation dealt with an analysis of fiduciary duty in an aboriginal context, this is a correct statement of the law when dealing with the Crown as a fiduciary in general; see Harris v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 484 (T.D.). 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [1156] In the circumstances of this case and in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Galambos v. Perez, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 247, concerning the essential requirements to ground a fiduciary relationship, I conclude that no such relationship arose between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant upon the facts of this case. This cause of action is dismissed. 5. Misfeasance in Public Office [1157] As a further and final alternative, the Plaintiffs plead misfeasance in public office, specifically in respect of certain promises made by Ms. Guscott, then the DIAND Director Renewable Resources to Allied Resources Ltd. The claim is set out in paras. 31 to 32 as follows: 31. Between March of 1997 and August 2001, DIAND, through its’ employee and agent Jennifer Guscott, the Director of Renewable Resources, Yukon Region, and in her capacity as a public official of the Defendant, exercised her authority and powers as a public official for the improper and malicious purpose and intent of causing harm and damage to the Plaintiffs by promising timber harvesting rights in the Watson Lake area to third parties to wit, Allied Resources Ltd., for the purpose of enticing Allied Resources Ltd. to establish a sawmill in the Watson Lake area when she knew that there was insufficient timber available to fulfil the assurances, representations, commitments and promises the Defendant had made to the Plaintiffs, and for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of timber harvesting rights or timber contrary to the assurances, representations, commitments and promises aforesaid made to the Plaintiffs, and
- 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 and 276: Page: 275 build a mill was consider
- Page 277 and 278: Page: 277 [1052] As a result, I fin
- 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: Page: 303 4. Breach of Fiduciary Du
- 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 327 and 328: Page: 327 [1228] Mr. Van Leeuwen sa
- Page 329 and 330: Page: 329 company would have been g
- Page 331 and 332: Page: 331 diesel and the actual pri
- Page 333 and 334: Page: 333 the weight to be given to
- Page 335 and 336: Page: 335 [1262] Mr. Van Leeuwen pr
- Page 337 and 338: Page: 337 reasonable. The estimatio
- Page 339 and 340: Page: 339 [1280] In cross-examinati
- Page 341 and 342: Page: 341 [1286] Mr. Van Leeuwen, i
- Page 343 and 344: Page: 343 a secure timber supply, t
- Page 345 and 346: Page: 345 A. Definitely. Because, a
- Page 347 and 348: Page: 347 [1309] The Defendant cros
- Page 349 and 350: Page: 349 [1317] As well, the Defen
- Page 351 and 352: Page: 351 To this end, not only sho
- Page 353 and 354: Page: 353 [1331] The Defendant has
Page: 305<br />
place the Crown in the untenable position of having to forego its<br />
public law duties when such duties conflict with Indian interests.<br />
[1155] While Fairford First Nation dealt with an analysis of fiduciary duty in an aboriginal context,<br />
this is a correct statement of the law when dealing with the Crown as a fiduciary in general; see<br />
Harris v. Canada, [2002] 2 F.C. 484 (T.D.).<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
[1156] In the circumstances of this case and in light of the recent decision of the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> of<br />
Canada in Galambos v. Perez, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 247, concerning the essential requirements to<br />
ground a fiduciary relationship, I conclude that no such relationship arose between the Plaintiffs and<br />
the Defendant upon the facts of this case. This cause of action is dismissed.<br />
5. Misfeasance in Public Office<br />
[1157] As a further and final alternative, the Plaintiffs plead misfeasance in public office,<br />
specifically in respect of certain promises made by Ms. Guscott, then the DIAND Director<br />
Renewable Resources to Allied Resources Ltd. The claim is set out in paras. 31 to 32 as follows:<br />
31. Between March of 1997 and August 2001, DIAND, through its’<br />
employee and agent Jennifer Guscott, the Director of Renewable<br />
Resources, Yukon Region, and in her capacity as a public official of<br />
the Defendant, exercised her authority and powers as a public official<br />
for the improper and malicious purpose and intent of causing harm<br />
and damage to the Plaintiffs by promising timber harvesting rights in<br />
the Watson Lake area to third parties to wit, Allied Resources Ltd.,<br />
for the purpose of enticing Allied Resources Ltd. to establish a<br />
sawmill in the Watson Lake area when she knew that there was<br />
insufficient timber available to fulfil the assurances, representations,<br />
commitments and promises the Defendant had made to the Plaintiffs,<br />
and for the purpose of depriving the Plaintiffs of timber harvesting<br />
rights or timber contrary to the assurances, representations,<br />
commitments and promises aforesaid made to the Plaintiffs, and