Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 348
[1313] Mr. Van Leeuwen initially calculated under pro forma no. 2 that the mill had an unrealized
EBITDA of $42,500,000, for 2001 to 2010. As I previously stated, this amount must be reduced due
to the change in Mr. Van Leeuwen’s evidence with respect to the Alaska market. It must also be
reduced to account for the LRF. As such, I find that on the balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs’
expectation losses for 2001 to 2010 were $31,000,000. The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover these
expectation losses as damages.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[1314] I have chosen to rely on the precise calculation of expectation losses from Mr. Van
Leeuwen’s evidence, but in any event these damages, totalling $31,000,000, represent a reasonable
amount of compensation for the expectation losses of 2001 to 2010. Any difficulties in calculation
should not prevent the Plaintiffs from recovery of this reasonable quantum of compensation; see
Wingate.
[1315] Further, I have accepted that it was reasonable to project the expectation losses for 20 years.
However, I find that the calculation of the further 10 years of expectation losses, for 2011 to 2020, is
not capable of a precise mathematical calculation. Nevertheless, I agree with the Manitoba Court of
Appeal in Wingate that it is “better that the damaged party receive a reasonable, if not
mathematically measurable, amount than that there should be no compensation for the loss.”
[1316] The Defendant was aware of the Plaintiffs’ intentions to proceed with value-added facilities.
As such she had notice that failure to fulfill her obligations would prevent the Plaintiffs from
realizing their expectations with respect to Phase 3; see Exhibit P-79, Tab 282.