Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 353
[1331] The Defendant has tried to characterize the conduct of its employees and agents as acting in
the interest of Canadians by responsibly protecting the forest resources. I reject that argument. This
contention by the Defendant is similar to the argument presented in LaPointe et al. v. Canada
(Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1992), 51 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.). Justice Collier, in LaPointe,
observed, at para. 64, that:
The defendants have maintained throughout, their actions were
not undertaken in a high-handed or arrogant manner but rather were
proceeded with after much deliberation and with the sole objective of
protecting and preserving the fishing industry. I am not persuaded in
the least, by this assertion.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[1332] I find that the conduct of the Defendant in this regard amounts to a breach of the obligation
to discharge a contractual duty in good faith, an independent actionable wrong as discussed by the
Supreme Court in Whiten.
[1333] I find that the action of some of the Defendant’s employees and agents were “harsh,
vindictive, reprehensible and malicious”, the criteria identified by the Supreme Court in Honda. I
have reviewed in some detail in my discussion of bad faith in that part of this judgment dealing with
negligence.
[1334] I have also reviewed the conduct of the Defendant during the trial in my discussion about
the conduct of the trial.
[1335] In Whiten, the Supreme Court of Canada capped an award of punitive damages at $1
million.