Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 332 [1251] Mr. Van Leeuwen testified about his familiarity with cogeneration facilities, at page 1904 of the transcript, where he said: Q. Are you familiar with the operation of cogeneration facilities A. Yes, I am. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) Q. And are you familiar with the operation of cogeneration facilities in the context of sawmills A. Yes, I am. [1252] He was challenged in cross-examination about his expertise in assessing the value of the cogeneration facility. He acknowledged that his company did not consult on cogeneration or the construction of cogeneration plants. As mentioned above, Mr. Van Leeuwen had sought information from the Veco/Siemens Technical Report and followed up receipt of information from Veco by meeting with the manager of the Burnaby office. [1253] Mr. Van Leeuwen testified that the purpose of that meeting was to review the report that he had received, that is the Veco/Siemens Canada Technical Report, and to seek clarification. As well, according to his testimony, Mr. Van Leeuwen asked some specific questions about the power used by the mill and about the availability of excess power. He used that information in his report. [1254] In my opinion, the reliance by Mr. Van Leeuwen upon factual information obtained by knowledgeable sources, including the Yukon Power Authority in Watson Lake, does not diminish
Page: 333 the weight to be given to his evidence. He gave a factual context for his calculations of income from the cogeneration facility. His evidence in that regard was not shaken in cross-examination. In my opinion, Mr. Van Leeuwen was credible and reliable in his evidence in this regard. [1255] In any event, Mr. Van Leeuwen was introduced as an expert in the following terms: …on the projected financial operational and product marketing analysis of sawmills, including cogeneration facilities,…wood product company and sawmill business plan development; and wood product company and sawmill financial and operational analysis… 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [1256] The Defendant did not challenge Mr. Van Leeuwen’s qualification as an expert in these areas. The Court accepts Mr. Van Leeuwen as an expert in these areas. As such, I accept his evidence in respect of the expected profits of a sawmill operation with an included cogeneration facility. [1257] Although he only provided a detailed projection for the years 2001 to 2010 in his report, he said that he expected the foregone profits for the ten year period 2010 to 2020 to parallel those that he had calculated for the period 2001 to 2010, as set out in the diagrams that form part of his report, Exhibit P-15. (iv) Damages 2001 to 2010 [1258] I will first address the damages for 2001 to 2010.
- 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 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: Page: 331 diesel and the actual pri
- 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 365 and 366: Page: 365 [1367] However, two of th
- Page 367 and 368: Page: 367 Development pursuant to c
- Page 369 and 370: Page: 369 were granted by the Plain
- Page 371 and 372: Page: 371 [1385] The Defendant’s
- Page 373 and 374: Page: 373 [1394] There were many wi
- Page 375 and 376: Page: 375 Q And you knew there was
- Page 377 and 378: Page: 377 Now does that generally a
- Page 379 and 380: Page: 379 discovery examination of
- Page 381 and 382: Page: 381 submissions. In terms - -
Page: 332<br />
[1251] Mr. Van Leeuwen testified about his familiarity with cogeneration facilities, at page 1904 of<br />
the transcript, where he said:<br />
Q. Are you familiar with the operation of cogeneration<br />
facilities<br />
A. Yes, I am.<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
Q. And are you familiar with the operation of cogeneration<br />
facilities in the context of sawmills<br />
A. Yes, I am.<br />
[1252] He was challenged in cross-examination about his expertise in assessing the value of the<br />
cogeneration facility. He acknowledged that his company did not consult on cogeneration or the<br />
construction of cogeneration plants. As mentioned above, Mr. Van Leeuwen had sought<br />
information from the Veco/Siemens Technical Report and followed up receipt of information from<br />
Veco by meeting with the manager of the Burnaby office.<br />
[1253] Mr. Van Leeuwen testified that the purpose of that meeting was to review the report that he<br />
had received, that is the Veco/Siemens Canada Technical Report, and to seek clarification. As well,<br />
according to his testimony, Mr. Van Leeuwen asked some specific questions about the power used<br />
by the mill and about the availability of excess power. He used that information in his report.<br />
[1254] In my opinion, the reliance by Mr. Van Leeuwen upon factual information obtained by<br />
knowledgeable sources, including the Yukon Power Authority in Watson Lake, does not diminish