Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 342 [1289] This response, in my opinion, is reasonable. In my view, his report at Exhibit P-15, is an opinion premised upon other factors and other considerations than were addressed in the Mill Audit. The two documents deal with two very different mandates. His expectation losses were based on the reasonable assumptions that a $5 million upgrade and that the development of Phase 2 would occur. As a result, his assessment of the mill before the upgrade and development of Phase 2 does not negatively affect his projections. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [1290] Mr. Van Leeuwen was challenged in cross-examination about the LRF used in his projections. [1291] Mr. Van Leeuwen testified that he did not know specifically how SYFC measured its LRF. The possibility that the LRF assumed by Mr. Van Leeuwen was not accurate, could affect the quantity of lumber produced by 10 percent. Mr. Van Leeuwen himself acknowledged this; see page 2012. [1292] This could mean an approximate increase in costs per year of $300,000, which would result in a corresponding decrease in profits of the same amount; see pages 2013 to 2014. [1293] Mr. Van Leewuan was also questioned about his assumption that the LRF would improve over time, even without any additional investment. In my view, Mr. Van Leeuwen’s opinion that the LRF would improve in the future, without additional investment, was reasonable. Once the mill was operating on a steady basis, that is on a full-time basis without shut-downs occasioned by the lack of
Page: 343 a secure timber supply, the employees would become more efficient and able to maximize the production from the logs. [1294] The longer the mill was in operation, the more experienced and capable its employees would become and there would be a corresponding increase in productivity. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) (v) Damages 2011 to 2020 [1295] I will now address the expectation losses for 2011 to 2020. [1296] There is a question as to the applicable time frame for calculating damages. Is it reasonable to assess damages by reference to a 20 year period In my opinion, the answer is “yes”. [1297] Mr. Van Leeuwen has provided detailed projections for a ten year period, that is 2001 to 2010. He did not carry out the same detailed analysis for the next decade, 2011 to 2020. Yet, he provided the written opinion that he had no reason to expect that the profit for the period 2011 to 2020 would differ significantly from those for 2001 to 2010. [1298] Mr. Van Leeuwen’s report addresses this at page 5 of Exhibit P-15 as follows: It is important to note that SYFC applied for, and expected to receive, a 20 year timber harvesting area (THA) of 200,000 m3 per year. IWMG has only provided a detailed ten year financial projection (2001 to 2010). However, it can be assumed that the SYFC mill would have had similar earnings from 2011 to 2020 based on typical 10 year and long term North American lumber supply/demand (price) trends. Although detailed annual financial
- 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 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: Page: 341 [1286] Mr. Van Leeuwen, i
- 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 383 and 384: Page: 383 [1412] On April 14, day 1
- Page 385 and 386: Page: 385 content and expect it to
- Page 387 and 388: Page: 387 VII. CONCLUSION [1420] At
- Page 389 and 390: Page: 389 [1432] The commitment, ot
- Page 391 and 392: Page: 391 [1443] At the end of the
Page: 343<br />
a secure timber supply, the employees would become more efficient and able to maximize the<br />
production from the logs.<br />
[1294] The longer the mill was in operation, the more experienced and capable its employees<br />
would become and there would be a corresponding increase in productivity.<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
(v) Damages 2011 to 2020<br />
[1295] I will now address the expectation losses for 2011 to 2020.<br />
[1296] There is a question as to the applicable time frame for calculating damages. Is it reasonable<br />
to assess damages by reference to a 20 year period In my opinion, the answer is “yes”.<br />
[1297] Mr. Van Leeuwen has provided detailed projections for a ten year period, that is 2001 to<br />
2010. He did not carry out the same detailed analysis for the next decade, 2011 to 2020. Yet, he<br />
provided the written opinion that he had no reason to expect that the profit for the period 2011 to<br />
2020 would differ significantly from those for 2001 to 2010.<br />
[1298] Mr. Van Leeuwen’s report addresses this at page 5 of Exhibit P-15 as follows:<br />
It is important to note that SYFC applied for, and expected to<br />
receive, a 20 year timber harvesting area (THA) of 200,000 m3 per<br />
year. IWMG has only provided a detailed ten year financial<br />
projection (2001 to 2010). However, it can be assumed that the<br />
SYFC mill would have had similar earnings from 2011 to 2020<br />
based on typical 10 year and long term North American lumber<br />
supply/demand (price) trends. Although detailed annual financial