This was an appeal by Canfor from a review decision by an acting Regional Manager regarding a stumpage rate determination by a Regional Appraisal Coordinator. Canfor sought an order from the Commission that the calculation of stumpage be remitted back to the Regional Appraisal Coordinator for a reassessment in accordance with the directions of the Commission.
The Commission decided that neither of the cost estimates provided by the parties were sufficient for determining the appropriate allowance for the road reconstruction. The Commission concluded that, given the particular circumstances of this road construction project, the invoiced record of actual work done ought to provide a better estimate of costs than measurements imputed more than a year after completion. However, the Commission found the invoices and data sheets provided by Canfor difficult to reconcile. The Commission directed that the appraisal sheets be recalculated based on relevant costs found in Canfor’s invoices.
The Commission found that an 1800 mm culvert and 900 mm overflow culvert combination constituted a “multiple culvert” as referred to in the Interior Appraisal Manual (the “IAM”), and directed that the cost of the culverts be allowed as a claim for an engineered structure by Canfor. The Commission also directed that Canfor be allowed to claim the “Rockdriller & Powderman” labour rate of $62.50 claimed under the IAM instead of the “Crib/Culvert Maker, Powderman” rate of $28.50. The Commission referred the stumpage rate calculations back to the Regional Appraisal Coordinator for recalculation based on the Commission’s directions. The appeal was allowed, in part.