Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 328
assumption that the Plaintiffs would have received a 20 year THA, for 200,000 m 3 annually, below.
Suffice it to say at this point, I find that it was not an assumption but rather a fact. As such, the use
of this assumption in his calculations was reasonable`.
[1233] Also common to both projections was the assumption that once the mill had a secure timber
supply, it would run for 12 months of the year and produce an average of 100,000 BF per shift,
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
working two shifts.
[1234] I find that as a matter of fact, the Plaintiffs’ mill was built to produce 100,000 BF. I also find
that when adequate timber was available, the mill worked two shifts and did produce 100,000 BF
per shift.
[1235] Another common assumption included a $5 million investment in 2002 to improve the
sawmill’s efficiency and lumber recovery factor.
[1236] Lumber recovery factor (“LRF”), as defined by Mr. Brian Kerr, at page 1320 of the
transcript, is, “basically a number that is derived by how many board feet of finished product you're
getting out of a round log, from any particular piece of sawmill equipment”.
[1237] With respect to the $5 million re-investment, Mr. Van Leeuwen testified, at page 1923, that:
A. Well, I assumed the sawmill was – or assumed the sawmill
was profitable, reasonably profitable, and I was advised by
shareholders of the company that, given the profits the