Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 347
[1309] The Defendant cross-examined Mr. Alan Kerr and Mr. Van Leeuwen. In neither instance
did she seriously challenge the evidence that was presented on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
[1310] In the cross-examination of Mr. Van Leeuwen, the Defendant questioned him about some of
his assumptions. I am satisfied that in his answers, Mr. Van Leeuwen adequately explained what he
had written in his report. In those few instances where he misstated the facts, those factual
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
misstatements have no material effect.
[1311] I have noted the salient points of Mr. Van Leeuwen’s evidence. He was a steady witness
who was not shaken in cross-examination. He offered a reasonable explanation for the superficially
opposing views expressed in Exhibits P-15 and D-16. His evidence, in Exhibit P-15 and in crossexamination,
is based upon his personal knowledge of relevant facts relating to the lumber industry
and review of relevant documents, as well as his opinion based upon his professional skill and
experience. I accept his evidence as credible, relevant, useful for the determination of damages and
not subject to any exclusionary rule; see R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9 and Merck & Co. v. Apotex
Inc. et al. (2005), 274 F.T.R. 113 (F.C.).
[1312] I am satisfied that the assumptions relied upon by Mr. Van Leeuwen in making these
financial projections are reasonable, subject to my observations about a reduction in profits having
regard to the modification in his evidence as to the volume of the Plaintiffs’ products that will be
sold in the Alaska market and also having regard to some uncertainty about the LRF.