Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 75
[294] Mr. Ivanksi testified that he would not have been offended by a proponent going directly to
the Minister as it was the common way of doing business in Yukon. He testified that he could not
recall if he had ever met with LPL at this restaurant. However, he did not deny that the meeting
happened. He also stated that he did not recall all of the meetings that he had attended with LPL.
[295] In weighing the evidence, I find that this meeting did occur and that Mr. Ivanski had
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
expressed his displeasure that LPL had gone directly to the Minister. I accept LPL’s explanation for
why it did not refer to the Gold Show commitment in its later communications. It is reasonable, in
my view, that LPL would not complain on a daily basis.
[296] In a letter dated July 15, 1996, Mr. Ivanski advised a Mr. Mueller that no LPL proposal to
harvest timber had been received. He characterized the LPL proposal as a “concept outline”. This
letter establishes that the Department was not relying upon the initial LPL business plan; see Exhibit
D-24.
[297] Throughout the remainder of 1996, LPL continued to seek investors and capital to finance
its business proposal. LPL continued to work towards construction of the mill, to develop business
plans and to assess the availability of timber. Mr. Gartshore and Mr. Gurney were involved with
these activities.
[298] LPL was aware that the harvest ceiling for Y01, Y02 and Y03 was 350,000 m 3 of timber per
year. By September 1996, LPL believed that the harvest ceiling in both Y02 and Y03 would most