Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 314 MR. WHITTLE: Secondly, the exhibit that is contained in the 24 boxes was, as the four counsel understand, agreed to be entered on July 4 th after the plaintiffs had closed their case, and Mr. Florence and I, again last evening discussing this, realized that that was the purpose for which the agreement was made. We did have the opportunity to review all of those documents when they were in Mr. Sali’s room over the course of the trial and we had the full opportunity to review those for the purposes of cross-examining Mr. Kerr when he took the stand for the second time to testify to damages. I appreciate the court wishes us to look to the transcript to find those references. If it pleases the court, all four counsel are agreed that that was the opportunity that was provided to me, that that opportunity was not taken when Mr. Kerr took the witness stand. However, we still are in the court’s hands as to whether you wish us to go back to the transcript and to find those entries. But as far as I am concerned as counsel, I had that opportunity if I wanted to take it. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) JUSTICE: Thank you for that clarification and it’s on the record that the Crown had the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Kerr with respect to those documents and did not do so. So that being so, it is not necessary to go back and find the specific references. [1178] Contained within the record are financial statements that were prepared for the Plaintiffs. These financial statements were the subject of an agreement between counsel for the parties. That agreement was filed at the hearing on May 6, 2008. That agreement, signed by Mr. Sali, Q.C. of Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Mr. G. Malcolm Florence of Counsel for the Defendant, provides as follows: SYFC v. THE QUEEN – AGREEMENT AS TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Each of the financial statements prepared for LPL and SYFC for the years 1996 through 2003 inclusive (both audited and unaudited) is deemed to be authentic. Further, it is agreed that they accurately reflect the assets, liabilities, equity, revenues and expenses of the companies as stated. However, the description of some of the various
Page: 315 items thereof may be inaccurate, although the corresponding amount listed is accurate. [1179] It was further understood that the Defendant is not admitting that any of the expenses or losses set out in the financial statement constitute damages in the event of a finding of liability against the Defendant. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [1180] As well, a summary of the financial statements was placed on the record. This summary was provided to the Court by the Plaintiffs, with the agreement of the Defendant. (ii) Legal Principles [1181] Turning now to the heart of the matter, the basis for awarding damages in cases of both tort, including the tort of negligent misrepresentations, and for breach of contract is to compensate the injured party for losses flowing from the negligent act or the breach of contract, as the case may be. [1182] The Plaintiffs have suffered an injury and are entitled to compensation. I agree with their submissions that given the nature of their enterprise and the causes of action upon which they have succeeded, it is not necessary to attribute those damages to a specific cause of action. [1183] In Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147, the Supreme Court of Canada held that concurrent or alternative liability in contract and tort will not be permitted where the duty of care arises from the terms of the contract. I am satisfied in this case that the Plaintiffs have established a duty of care that arises independent of their contractual relationship with the Defendant. As such, I
- 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 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: Page: 313 MR. WHITTLE: I am satisfi
- 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 355 and 356: Page: 355 8. Interest [1340] The Pl
- Page 357 and 358: Page: 357 arising in that province.
- Page 359 and 360: Page: 359 Post-judgment interest 36
- Page 361 and 362: Page: 361 [1350] Similarly, the Cou
- Page 363 and 364: Page: 363 [1360] Counsel for both p
Page: 315<br />
items thereof may be inaccurate, although the corresponding amount<br />
listed is accurate.<br />
[1179] It was further understood that the Defendant is not admitting that any of the expenses or<br />
losses set out in the financial statement constitute damages in the event of a finding of liability<br />
against the Defendant.<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
[1180] As well, a summary of the financial statements was placed on the record. This summary was<br />
provided to the <strong>Court</strong> by the Plaintiffs, with the agreement of the Defendant.<br />
(ii)<br />
Legal Principles<br />
[1181] Turning now to the heart of the matter, the basis for awarding damages in cases of both tort,<br />
including the tort of negligent misrepresentations, and for breach of contract is to compensate the<br />
injured party for losses flowing from the negligent act or the breach of contract, as the case may be.<br />
[1182] The Plaintiffs have suffered an injury and are entitled to compensation. I agree with their<br />
submissions that given the nature of their enterprise and the causes of action upon which they have<br />
succeeded, it is not necessary to attribute those damages to a specific cause of action.<br />
[1183] In Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147, the Supreme <strong>Court</strong> of Canada held that<br />
concurrent or alternative liability in contract and tort will not be permitted where the duty of care<br />
arises from the terms of the contract. I am satisfied in this case that the Plaintiffs have established a<br />
duty of care that arises independent of their contractual relationship with the Defendant. As such, I