Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 67
[263] By 1996, according to the Response to the Request to Admit, the representatives of the
Plaintiff LPL had familiarized themselves with the policy and applicable regulations relative to the
allocation of timber resources in Yukon. At this time, timber was primarily allocated on the basis of
permits, pursuant to the Yukon Timber Regulations, although the legislative scheme allowed other
forms of authorized harvesting under section 8 of the Territorial Lands Act.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[264] In March 1996, Mr. Gurney contacted the Regional Office of DIAND in Whitehorse for the
purpose of determining if a secure supply of timber would be made available for LPL’s project. Mr.
Gurney sought 100,000 m 3 per year of fibre for two years, or until the FMP was in place. However,
the business proposal was clear that 200,000 m 3 of fibre was required in the long-term. The business
proposal explained that the mill would be built to utilize the largely untouched “pulpwood” sized
logs and noted that such quantities could be sustained on the undercut alone for the next 17.5 years.
[265] The request for a secured supply was framed as a request for approval in principle; see
Exhibit P-79, Tab 27. Additionally, Mr. Gurney acknowledged, in Exhibit D-11, Tab 1, that LPL
knew “that the timber agreement could not necessarily be complete and secure by [July 1, 1996] but
the company is asking for an indication that if the requirements were met that the timber supply
would be available.”
[266] However, LPL was aware of the training THA, in the amount of 75,000 m 3 , that had been
granted to LFN. It was also aware that a different THA had been assigned to KFR, also in the
amount of 75,000 m 3 and that a condition of that THA was that KFR have, or be involved with, a