Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ... Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...
Page: 92 [360] Mr. Heit testified that he was aware of the reduction in the harvest ceiling for Y02 and Y03 from 350,000 m 3 to 128,000 m 3 . [361] This Client Guide, at page 2618, refers to a “mill harvest area”. In order to access timber, an applicant must own a registered mill site. This document sets out the relevant regulations, as well as 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) Chapter 17 of the umbrella final agreement. [362] There was no direct evidence concerning the significance, or otherwise, of Chapter 17 of the umbrella final agreement, although coy references were made by Mr. Monty to Chapter 17. Mr. Sewell, when testifying on behalf of the Defendant, made at least one reference to this document but without any explanation. [363] In the months leading up to the opening of the mill in October 1998, LPL and SYFC made arrangements to acquire timber supply. They did so by signing log supply agreements with local loggers. [364] Mr. Heit testified that the CTP process did not work in the short-term but that is not the same as saying that it could not have worked. He also said that not all CTP holders wished to do business with SYFC. Nevertheless, the short-term timber supply for the mill was derived by accessing timber through the existing CTP process.
Page: 93 [365] The Plaintiffs were aware, prior to the opening of the mill in October 1998, that KFR had a timber harvesting agreement and that KFR could sell wood from their THA without needing to obtain prior permission from the Department. [366] The mill opened in October 1998 and shut down a couple of months later, due to a lack of timber supply. The mill had been installed, by the joint venture, in Watson Lake, on the site that 2010 FC 495 (CanLII) LPL had leased. The mill was assembled on site after construction in Vanderhoof. It consisted of a building placed on a 20,000 square foot slab of concrete. [367] The mill operation included an exterior sorting system that was designed to cut wood to length after it had been debarked. The site included a scale to weigh the wood. The weight of wood was used both to calculate the stumpage fee to be paid to the Government and to record inventory in the yard. As well, there were two processing machines to remove limbs or pieces of limbs, called “snipes”, from the logs. [368] The mill, as built, was designed around a 7 inch average diameter of log and required an average of 16,666 m 3 of wood per month, to operate on double shifts. This is a quantity of approximately 200,000 m 3 per year. The mill was built to produce 100,000 of board feet per shift. [369] Mr. Spencer testified that he was comfortable with the mill design and its equipment when it began operating in October 1998.
- 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: Page: 91 It seems the goal of havin
- 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: 93<br />
[365] The Plaintiffs were aware, prior to the opening of the mill in October 1998, that KFR had a<br />
timber harvesting agreement and that KFR could sell wood from their THA without needing to<br />
obtain prior permission from the Department.<br />
[366] The mill opened in October 1998 and shut down a couple of months later, due to a lack of<br />
timber supply. The mill had been installed, by the joint venture, in Watson Lake, on the site that<br />
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)<br />
LPL had leased. The mill was assembled on site after construction in Vanderhoof. It consisted of a<br />
building placed on a 20,000 square foot slab of concrete.<br />
[367] The mill operation included an exterior sorting system that was designed to cut wood to<br />
length after it had been debarked. The site included a scale to weigh the wood. The weight of wood<br />
was used both to calculate the stumpage fee to be paid to the Government and to record inventory in<br />
the yard. As well, there were two processing machines to remove limbs or pieces of limbs, called<br />
“snipes”, from the logs.<br />
[368] The mill, as built, was designed around a 7 inch average diameter of log and required an<br />
average of 16,666 m 3 of wood per month, to operate on double shifts. This is a quantity of<br />
approximately 200,000 m 3 per year. The mill was built to produce 100,000 of board feet per shift.<br />
[369] Mr. Spencer testified that he was comfortable with the mill design and its equipment when it<br />
began operating in October 1998.