Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 44 imposed by the regulatory amendment, colloquially known as the “60/40 Rule” and the two-tier stumpage regime. These amendments will be discussed in the context section below. [177] He was also aware that the Department was mandated to encourage economic development and was looking for ways to establish a forestry industry. Mr. Henry was also aware that there was no existing facility in the southeastern Yukon with the capacity to process 350,000 m 3 of timber and 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) further, that the Plaintiffs required an annual volume of 200,000 m 3 of fibre. [178] Mr. Howard Madill was the next witness called for the Defendant. He worked for DIAND in Yukon, based in Whitehorse, for the period June 1999 to July 2000. [179] He served as Regional Manager of Forest Resources until June 2000, during the period of time when Mr. Monty was working for the YTG. Following Mr. Monty’s return in June 2000, Mr. Madill worked on matters related to the devolution of the Fire Program to the YTG. Mr. Madill was seconded from his employment with the British Columbia Government to work for the Federal Government. [180] He was approached for this position due to his relationship with Ms. Guscott. They had previously worked together in the Northwest Territories. [181] Mr. Madill was examined as to his interactions with the Plaintiffs. He repeatedly said that he endeavoured to treat all clients, that is all applicants for wood supply, in a fair and equitable manner,
Page: 45 with no particular responsibility for the Plaintiffs. He demonstrated no awareness of the email message sent by Mr. Sewell to SYFC on June 7, 1999, entered as Exhibit P-79, Tab 182. In this email, Mr. Sewell advised SYFC that working with them would be a “high priority” for Mr. Madill. [182] By October 1999, Mr. Madill knew that SYFC was committed to the operation of the mill in Watson Lake and that it had plans for expansion. He knew those plans included a planer and a kiln, 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) as well as the development of a cogeneration plant. [183] Mr. Madill testified that he had visited the mill on more than one occasion. An email entered as Exhibit P-79, Tab 185, dated June 10, 1999 indicates that he was due to tour the mill on June 22, 1999. [184] Mr. Madill had no recollection of having been told by anyone at the Department that SYFC had been “guaranteed” a supply of timber. [185] Mr. Madill acknowledged that upon his arrival at the Regional Office of DIAND, files and records in the office were available to him. He did not recall reviewing a transcript of the meeting held on April 7, 1999. He did not recall reviewing a briefing note, Exhibit P-79, Tab 137, that had been prepared prior to the meeting on April 7 th . He did not recall discussions with Ms. Guscott concerning the matters addressed in an email message from Ms. Clark, Exhibit P-79, Tab 155.
- Page 1 and 2: Federal Court Cour fédérale Date:
- Page 3 and 4: Page: 3 [7] This action was commenc
- Page 5 and 6: Page: 5 [16] On August 25, 2004, th
- Page 7 and 8: Page: 7 the appellant to serve and
- Page 9 and 10: Page: 9 [30] Both parties have subm
- Page 11 and 12: Page: 11 these documents for the tr
- Page 13 and 14: Page: 13 [42] Mr. Sewell provided g
- Page 15 and 16: Page: 15 [52] Mr. Leonard Bourgh wa
- Page 17 and 18: Page: 17 [62] Mr. Gurney operated a
- Page 19 and 20: Page: 19 [72] Mr. Brian Kerr was th
- Page 21 and 22: Page: 21 [81] In brief, as Woodland
- Page 23 and 24: Page: 23 with the LPL group; he rem
- Page 25 and 26: Page: 25 [97] Mr. Spencer also test
- Page 27 and 28: Page: 27 Keith Spencer on a regular
- Page 29 and 30: Page: 29 addressed meetings with DI
- Page 31 and 32: Page: 31 publications and a summary
- Page 33 and 34: Page: 33 [129] Mr. Irwin testified
- Page 35 and 36: Page: 35 Assessment Act, S.C. 1992,
- Page 37 and 38: Page: 37 [147] In his position as t
- Page 39 and 40: Page: 39 [156] Mr. Fillmore also ga
- Page 41 and 42: Page: 41 Department early in his te
- Page 43: Page: 43 Report for Forest Manageme
- Page 47 and 48: Page: 47 [192] Mr. Sewell testified
- Page 49 and 50: Page: 49 4. The powers, duties and
- Page 51 and 52: Page: 51 [205] In the introduction,
- Page 53 and 54: Page: 53 activity occurs. The total
- Page 55 and 56: Page: 55 any person or class of per
- Page 57 and 58: Page: 57 [225] In protest over the
- Page 59 and 60: Page: 59 described the LPL project
- Page 61 and 62: Page: 61 [238] The RIAS also explai
- Page 63 and 64: Page: 63 [246] For the sake of clar
- Page 65 and 66: Page: 65 [254] This was the context
- Page 67 and 68: Page: 67 [263] By 1996, according t
- Page 69 and 70: Page: 69 [270] Following the April
- Page 71 and 72: Page: 71 require 200,000 m 3 of tim
- Page 73 and 74: Page: 73 June 4, 1996. In his lette
- Page 75 and 76: Page: 75 [294] Mr. Ivanksi testifie
- Page 77 and 78: Page: 77 [303] This proposed invest
- Page 79 and 80: Page: 79 C. 1997 [311] In late 1996
- Page 81 and 82: Page: 81 Watson Lake area. I unders
- Page 83 and 84: Page: 83 [326] This report, prepare
- Page 85 and 86: Page: 85 [332] As previously noted,
- Page 87 and 88: Page: 87 D. 1998 [341] The first jo
- Page 89 and 90: Page: 89 [349] Mr. Henry explained,
- Page 91 and 92: Page: 91 It seems the goal of havin
- Page 93 and 94: Page: 93 [365] The Plaintiffs were
Page: 44<br />
imposed by the regulatory amendment, colloquially known as the “60/40 Rule” and the two-tier<br />
stumpage regime. These amendments will be discussed in the context section below.<br />
[177] He was also aware that the Department was mandated to encourage economic development<br />
and was looking for ways to establish a forestry industry. Mr. Henry was also aware that there was<br />
no existing facility in the southeastern Yukon with the capacity to process 350,000 m 3 of timber and<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
further, that the Plaintiffs required an annual volume of 200,000 m 3 of fibre.<br />
[178] Mr. Howard Madill was the next witness called for the Defendant. He worked for DIAND<br />
in Yukon, based in Whitehorse, for the period June 1999 to July 2000.<br />
[179] He served as Regional Manager of Forest Resources until June 2000, during the period of<br />
time when Mr. Monty was working for the YTG. Following Mr. Monty’s return in June 2000, Mr.<br />
Madill worked on matters related to the devolution of the Fire Program to the YTG. Mr. Madill was<br />
seconded from his employment with the British Columbia Government to work for the <strong>Federal</strong><br />
Government.<br />
[180] He was approached for this position due to his relationship with Ms. Guscott. They had<br />
previously worked together in the Northwest Territories.<br />
[181] Mr. Madill was examined as to his interactions with the Plaintiffs. He repeatedly said that he<br />
endeavoured to treat all clients, that is all applicants for wood supply, in a fair and equitable manner,
Change language