Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 30 [117] This management position included responsibility for all aspects of their operations, day-today, capital investments, mill improvements, hiring, training, and labour relations. [118] Additionally, he was responsible for the marketing and sales of the sawmill group’s products. The markets for these mills included Canada, the United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, China, Taiwan and the Middle East. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [119] Mr. Van Leeuwen testified that in 1997 he left Interfor, the successor company of Sauder, and became a consultant with R.E. Taylor & Associates Ltd. This company later became IWMG. [120] According to Mr. Van Leeuwen, IWMG, and its predecessor R.E. Taylor & Associates Ltd., is a consulting company that specializes in wood products development, marketing and business planning. He testified that IWMG has consulted on evaluation of forestry companies’ business plans, financial situation, and market outlook during sawmill acquisitions and as consultants to financial institutions. [121] Mr. Van Leeuwen specializes in performing manufacturing audits of sawmills and wood manufacturing plants, sawmill performance reviews, developing market and business plans for existing sawmills or for the development of new sawmills. [122] The Court was referred to seven publications of IWMG. Mr. Van Leeuwen testified that he was involved in the development and participation of almost all of these publications. A list of these
Page: 31 publications and a summary of Mr. Van Leeuwen’s education and work experience can be found at Exhibit P-14. [123] The Plaintiffs submitted that Mr. Van Leeuwen was qualified to give “expert opinion testimony on the projected financial, operational and product marketing analysis of sawmills, including cogeneration facilities, and in particular the sawmill owned and operated by the 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) Plaintiffs.” This characterization was based on his extensive work history in the applicable fields; see pages 1950-1951 of the transcript. [124] The Defendant stated that she was not challenging Mr. Van Leeuwen’s qualifications as an expert. [125] In 2001, Mr. Van Leeuwen was engaged by KFR when his company was called R.E. Taylor & Associates Ltd., to conduct an audit of the Plaintiffs’ mill. The audit was titled the “South Yukon Forest Products – Mill Audit & Evaluation of Product & Market Options” (the “Mill Audit”). The Mill Audit was entered as Exhibit D-16. He was subsequently engaged to prepare an expert report on the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs as a result of the mill closure. [126] In cross-examination, Mr. Van Leeuwen explained what he meant in the Mill Audit by “old, inefficient, cost-ineffective”. He also explained what he meant by “half a mill”. He drew the distinction between a “mill” and “plant”, and he said that the “sawmill is just the part of the mill that
- Page 1 and 2: Federal Court Cour fédérale Date:
- Page 3 and 4: Page: 3 [7] This action was commenc
- Page 5 and 6: Page: 5 [16] On August 25, 2004, th
- Page 7 and 8: Page: 7 the appellant to serve and
- Page 9 and 10: Page: 9 [30] Both parties have subm
- Page 11 and 12: Page: 11 these documents for the tr
- Page 13 and 14: Page: 13 [42] Mr. Sewell provided g
- Page 15 and 16: Page: 15 [52] Mr. Leonard Bourgh wa
- Page 17 and 18: Page: 17 [62] Mr. Gurney operated a
- Page 19 and 20: Page: 19 [72] Mr. Brian Kerr was th
- Page 21 and 22: Page: 21 [81] In brief, as Woodland
- Page 23 and 24: Page: 23 with the LPL group; he rem
- Page 25 and 26: Page: 25 [97] Mr. Spencer also test
- Page 27 and 28: Page: 27 Keith Spencer on a regular
- Page 29: Page: 29 addressed meetings with DI
- Page 33 and 34: Page: 33 [129] Mr. Irwin testified
- Page 35 and 36: Page: 35 Assessment Act, S.C. 1992,
- Page 37 and 38: Page: 37 [147] In his position as t
- Page 39 and 40: Page: 39 [156] Mr. Fillmore also ga
- Page 41 and 42: Page: 41 Department early in his te
- Page 43 and 44: Page: 43 Report for Forest Manageme
- Page 45 and 46: Page: 45 with no particular respons
- Page 47 and 48: Page: 47 [192] Mr. Sewell testified
- Page 49 and 50: Page: 49 4. The powers, duties and
- Page 51 and 52: Page: 51 [205] In the introduction,
- Page 53 and 54: Page: 53 activity occurs. The total
- Page 55 and 56: Page: 55 any person or class of per
- Page 57 and 58: Page: 57 [225] In protest over the
- Page 59 and 60: Page: 59 described the LPL project
- Page 61 and 62: Page: 61 [238] The RIAS also explai
- Page 63 and 64: Page: 63 [246] For the sake of clar
- Page 65 and 66: Page: 65 [254] This was the context
- Page 67 and 68: Page: 67 [263] By 1996, according t
- Page 69 and 70: Page: 69 [270] Following the April
- Page 71 and 72: Page: 71 require 200,000 m 3 of tim
- Page 73 and 74: Page: 73 June 4, 1996. In his lette
- Page 75 and 76: Page: 75 [294] Mr. Ivanksi testifie
- Page 77 and 78: Page: 77 [303] This proposed invest
- Page 79 and 80: Page: 79 C. 1997 [311] In late 1996
Page: 31<br />
publications and a summary of Mr. Van Leeuwen’s education and work experience can be found at<br />
Exhibit P-14.<br />
[123] The Plaintiffs submitted that Mr. Van Leeuwen was qualified to give “expert opinion<br />
testimony on the projected financial, operational and product marketing analysis of sawmills,<br />
including cogeneration facilities, and in particular the sawmill owned and operated by the<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
Plaintiffs.” This characterization was based on his extensive work history in the applicable fields;<br />
see pages 1950-1951 of the transcript.<br />
[124] The Defendant stated that she was not challenging Mr. Van Leeuwen’s qualifications as an<br />
expert.<br />
[125] In 2001, Mr. Van Leeuwen was engaged by KFR when his company was called R.E. Taylor<br />
& Associates Ltd., to conduct an audit of the Plaintiffs’ mill. The audit was titled the “South Yukon<br />
Forest Products – Mill Audit & Evaluation of Product & Market Options” (the “Mill Audit”). The<br />
Mill Audit was entered as Exhibit D-16. He was subsequently engaged to prepare an expert report<br />
on the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs as a result of the mill closure.<br />
[126] In cross-examination, Mr. Van Leeuwen explained what he meant in the Mill Audit by “old,<br />
inefficient, cost-ineffective”. He also explained what he meant by “half a mill”. He drew the<br />
distinction between a “mill” and “plant”, and he said that the “sawmill is just the part of the mill that