22.01.2015
•
Views
Page: 4 [11] On January 2, 2003, the Defendant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to file a counterclaim. Leave was granted in that regard by Order dated February 25, 2003 and an Amended Statement of Defence and Counterclaim was filed on February 26, 2003. The Counterclaim raises claims in trespass and nuisance relative to the Plaintiffs’ continued occupation of certain lands, as well as a claim for unpaid rent in the amount of $4,060 together with Goods and Services Tax and interest. 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) [12] On October 30, 2003, SYFC filed a Statement of Defence to the Counterclaim. [13] On February 16, 2004, SYFC filed a Notice of Motion seeking to join LPL as a Plaintiff, that LPL and that SYFC be appointed to represent the joint venturers operating as SYFC in this proceeding, that the style of cause be amended, and that leave be granted to file a further Amended Statement of Claim. [14] By Notice of Abandonment filed on March 17, 2004, SYFC abandoned the request set out in para. 2 of its Notice of Motion for the appointment of the intended Plaintiff LPL and the Plaintiff SYFC as the representatives of the joint venturers. [15] By letter dated May 25, 2004 and filed with the Registry of the Court at Vancouver on May 25, 2004, the Defendant objected to the partial abandonment of the Plaintiff’s motion, that is with respect to para. 2, the appointment of the intended Plaintiff LPL and of the Plaintiff SYFC to act in a representative capacity pursuant to former Rule 114 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
Page: 5 [16] On August 25, 2004, the Defendant filed a Notice of Motion seeking an Order for security of costs, as well as an Order that the Plaintiff produce an accurate and complete affidavit of documents and that Mr. Don Oulton be cross-examined upon the Plaintiff’s affidavit of documents. [17] Prothonotary Hargrave directed that SYFC’s motion to join LPL be heard at a special sitting 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) before the Court in Whitehorse. By Direction filed on September 13, 2004, the presiding judge directed that the Defendant’s motion for security for costs and other relief would be heard at the same time. [18] Following a hearing in Whitehorse on November 4, 2004, two Orders were issued. In the first Order, SYFC’s motion to add LPL as a Plaintiff was dismissed but the motion to advance a claim for breach of contract was allowed. [19] In the second Order, the Defendant’s motion for security for costs was granted and SYFC was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $20,000. The sum of $20,000 was paid into Court on December 8, 2004, by SYFC in that regard. [20] SYFC filed a Notice of Appeal on December 7, 2004 relating to the Order dismissing its motion to join LPL as a Plaintiff. The appeal file is A-641-04.
-
Page 1 and 2:
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date:
-
Page 3:
Page: 3 [7] This action was commenc
-
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 and 44:
Page: 43 Report for Forest Manageme
-
Page 45 and 46:
Page: 45 with no particular respons
-
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 95 and 96:
Page: 95 remained on the site for s
-
Page 97 and 98:
Page: 97 evidence, which is consist
-
Page 99 and 100:
Page: 99 [389] A meeting was held o
-
Page 101 and 102:
Page: 101 [396] These documents wer
-
Page 103 and 104:
Page: 103 location under a future C
-
Page 105 and 106:
Page: 105 [414] A briefing note, da
-
Page 107 and 108:
Page: 107 to shut down operations i
-
Page 109 and 110:
Page: 109 continuing delays by DIAN
-
Page 111 and 112:
Page: 111 [439] On October 1, 1999,
-
Page 113 and 114:
Page: 113 [447] In October 1999, DI
-
Page 115 and 116:
Page: 115 regulations would impleme
-
Page 117 and 118:
Page: 117 [464] There was another m
-
Page 119 and 120:
Page: 119 [472] Mr. Ballantyne, the
-
Page 121 and 122:
Page: 121 [482] However, there is a
-
Page 123 and 124:
Page: 123 [488] I note that on the
-
Page 125 and 126:
Page: 125 [498] Mr. Ballantyne said
-
Page 127 and 128:
Page: 127 [508] SYFC had announced
-
Page 129 and 130:
Page: 129 [516] The closure of the
-
Page 131 and 132:
Page: 131 [523] The Hyland-Coal THA
-
Page 133 and 134:
Page: 133 [531] As mentioned earlie
-
Page 135 and 136:
Page: 135 explained to YCS that the
-
Page 137 and 138:
Page: 137 [543] At this time the jo
-
Page 139 and 140:
Page: 139 without the promised timb
-
Page 141 and 142:
Page: 141 479 In some respects coun
-
Page 143 and 144:
Page: 143 B. Preliminary Issues [56
-
Page 145 and 146:
Page: 145 of action arising in that
-
Page 147 and 148:
Page: 147 [577] In responding to th
-
Page 149 and 150:
Page: 149 The plaintiff shall serve
-
Page 151 and 152:
Page: 151 20 For the reasons expres
-
Page 153 and 154:
Page: 153 [598] Both the Plaintiffs
-
Page 155 and 156:
Page: 155 … Liability for acts of
-
Page 157 and 158:
Page: 157 from the evidence, and if
-
Page 159 and 160:
Page: 159 [616] Mr. Gurney is an un
-
Page 161 and 162:
Page: 161 Q. Did you understand the
-
Page 163 and 164:
Page: 163 [633] Mr. Madill was anot
-
Page 165 and 166:
Page: 165 [643] Having regard to th
-
Page 167 and 168:
Page: 167 [653] In Design Services
-
Page 169 and 170:
Page: 169 [660] In Childs v. Desorm
-
Page 171 and 172:
Page: 171 [668] This reliance by th
-
Page 173 and 174:
Page: 173 [674] Similarly, the Defe
-
Page 175 and 176:
Page: 175 we would be interested in
-
Page 177 and 178:
Page: 177 happy with this decision)
-
Page 179 and 180:
Page: 179 [703] This high unemploym
-
Page 181 and 182:
Page: 181 [711] I also note that th
-
Page 183 and 184:
Page: 183 [718] This is not the cas
-
Page 185 and 186:
Page: 185 [726] In my opinion, the
-
Page 187 and 188:
Page: 187 [732] Similarly, Mr. Loek
-
Page 189 and 190:
Page: 189 [741] There is no doubt t
-
Page 191 and 192:
Page: 191 Department employed a loc
-
Page 193 and 194:
Page: 193 duty of care and that the
-
Page 195 and 196:
Page: 195 inordinate delay, that in
-
Page 197 and 198:
Page: 197 industry need, promises m
-
Page 199 and 200:
Page: 199 … Industry is not stupi
-
Page 201 and 202:
Page: 201 offered by Mr. Fillmore i
-
Page 203 and 204:
Page: 203 • Uncertainties associa
-
Page 205 and 206:
Page: 205 available sustainable tim
-
Page 207 and 208:
Page: 207 [787] On August 9, 2000,
-
Page 209 and 210:
Page: 209 [796] On the basis of the
-
Page 211 and 212:
Page: 211 [805] In preparation for
-
Page 213 and 214:
Page: 213 [810] This is an extraord
-
Page 215 and 216:
Page: 215 inferences, to be sure, c
-
Page 217 and 218:
Page: 217 occurrences but occurred
-
Page 219 and 220:
Page: 219 [831] Of particular impor
-
Page 221 and 222:
Page: 221 [840] Mr. Madill appeared
-
Page 223 and 224:
Page: 223 evidence of the Defendant
-
Page 225 and 226:
Page: 225 an inference of causation
-
Page 227 and 228:
Page: 227 [860] The Defendant drew
-
Page 229 and 230:
Page: 229 [869] This conduct, inclu
-
Page 231 and 232:
Page: 231 [878] In the result, I fi
-
Page 233 and 234:
Page: 233 [887] Unfortunately, for
-
Page 235 and 236:
Page: 235 [897] As I understand the
-
Page 237 and 238:
Page: 237 [905] Throughout 1998, th
-
Page 239 and 240:
Page: 239 James Moore. That meeting
-
Page 241 and 242:
Page: 241 391605 B.C. Ltd. was give
-
Page 243 and 244:
Page: 243 (3) The representor must
-
Page 245 and 246:
Page: 245 [932] For the reasons not
-
Page 247 and 248:
Page: 247 proposed mill project. Mr
-
Page 249 and 250:
Page: 249 [949] Mr. Fehr’s eviden
-
Page 251 and 252:
Page: 251 commitments and they’ve
-
Page 253 and 254:
Page: 253 observations of his manne
-
Page 255 and 256:
Page: 255 [973] As well, the fact t
-
Page 257 and 258:
Page: 257 all of its commitments. T
-
Page 259 and 260:
Page: 259 JUSTICE: Mr. Nault is not
-
Page 261 and 262:
Page: 261 [996] Moreover, the evide
-
Page 263 and 264:
Page: 263 (b) Was the representatio
-
Page 265 and 266:
Page: 265 Thus, where an advising p
-
Page 267 and 268:
Page: 267 Q. And you understood tho
-
Page 269 and 270:
Page: 269 considering the balance o
-
Page 271 and 272:
Page: 271 was withheld addressed th
-
Page 273 and 274:
Page: 273 [1037] Was that reliance
-
Page 275 and 276:
Page: 275 build a mill was consider
-
Page 277 and 278:
Page: 277 [1052] As a result, I fin
-
Page 279 and 280:
Page: 279 servants. That was a subj
-
Page 281 and 282:
Page: 281 [1068] As I understand th
-
Page 283 and 284:
Page: 283 contract. Liability can a
-
Page 285 and 286:
Page: 285 [1084] Mr. Alan Kerr and
-
Page 287 and 288:
Page: 287 [1093] Given the nature o
-
Page 289 and 290:
Page: 289 [1096] The Plaintiffs sub
-
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 and 342:
Page: 341 [1286] Mr. Van Leeuwen, i
-
Page 343 and 344:
Page: 343 a secure timber supply, t
-
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 393 and 394:
Page: ii B. Preliminary Issues 567-
-
Page 395 and 396:
Page: iv (ii) Legal Principles 1181
-
Page 397:
Page: 2 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Benne