40
FOREST APPEAL BOARD RE: OMINECA ENTERPRISESLTD. SUBMISSIONS OF MINISTRY OF FORESTS
- 36 -
terms of estoppel, Omineca would have to show some reliance on that agreement, that they had changed their position to their detriment. Omineca did not suggest any way in which it had altered its position in reliance on what it says it was told. And it could not, because Oniineca was not in a position to pay the rent. The matter of the November 17, 1986 meeting itself was before the Forster Board which heard the matter 13 months after the fact. They heard the same witnesses and reviewed the same documents, and they reached the conclusion that at most Omineca was given the opportunity to present a proposal prior to November 30 and they did not do so. While this Board is not bound by that Board's findings, this Board should be cautious about reaching a different conclusion 12 years after the fact. What was said at the November 17, 1986 meeting is a difficult issue because one group says one thing, and another group another. Mr. Wilkins is frank that he does not remember the meeting now, but did remember it when he testified before the Forster Board. Mr. Flitton's evidence is supportive of the Ministry's position as is Mr. Kempfs. Mr. Kempf may not remember details of the meeting but he remembers important facts such as the result and the conclusion. The Petersons have a vested interest in their version of events. They remember . things which are just not so. An example is that John Peterson testified that one of the effects of Mr. Justice Ruttan's decision was to require the parties to ' mediate their differences and work out some terms by which Ornineca could get back into operation. That is not in the decision. Omineca says that the Ministry of Forests witnesses are trying to cover up a conspiracy to do Ornineca in. There is no doubt that Omineca suffered a catastrophe in the early 1980s and they cast about for a scapegoat to explain why their business failed. The Ministry of Forests witnesses have retired and do not have the same vested interest. But one would have to ask why the Ministry of Forests was out to get Omineca. There is no credible motive for that when you look at the AAC situation as it actually was. And if things happened as Ornineca suggests, then it is not credible when one thinks of how many officials, ministers, politicians and governments were involved. The May 1988 meeting between Mr. Kempf and the Petersons is of little weight. Mr. Kempf simply does not recall that. Mr. Braul was clear that Mr. Kempf did not comment on the accuracy of any of the points in the draft affidavit. He simply had a strong impression that Mr. Kempf agreed with the Peterson's version. Mr. Kempfs letter of June 6, 1989 is ambiguous. The reference to "contact" in the letter could very well mean a proposal. There are some external things which tip the weight of the evidence. In regard to the November 17, 1986 meeting. Ornineca said that after the August 5