next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Regal decision As many of you are aware Regal Goldfields has been in court in Nova Scotia trying to quash the government's return of Jim Campbells Barren to protection. They were unsuccessful (though appeals are still possible). The basics follow, but for a real 'legalistic' view you'll have to enquire elsewhere. First, the sequence of major events being considered. Oct 29 '97: Premier annonces that JCB will be returned to the list. Oct 31 '97: Province notifies Regal that its land access permits are no longer valid. (It's lawyers had advised that there was no way of revoking the exploration license, so the government left tem valid and simply said you can't go onthe land. (Regal did hold a permit from June '97 and valid for 1 year, and renewable). Dec 3 '97: Government introduced the Wilderness Act (Bill 17) to protect all 31 sites. Mar ~17 '97: Moratorium rinistated on JCB till end of 1998. Mar ~17 '97: Election writ dropped, killing Bill 17. Regal contended that: - there was no legal grounds for revoking the access permit; - there was no legal grounds for reinvoking the moratorium, or, if there were, it couldn't apply to existing licenses; and - in re-envoking the moratorium the govrnment was acting in bad faith (ie singling out Regal). Regal interpreted the Mineral Resources Act as insuring security of tenure once a liscence was acquired, and heavily emphasized the Whitehorse Mining Initiative as supporting this. The Judge ruled that: The Mineral Resources Act was about more then security of Commercial interests, and that the legislators intended to ensure retention and contol of the balance of interests. In effect, section 21(1) of the Act gives the Government the ability to halt the mining process at any stage. This means that the moratorium can be used to suspend either for a period or permanently exploration or extraction licenses. The judge noted that while the Whitehorse Mining Initiative postdated the legislation and had no impact on it's interpretation, that beside supporting the security of mining tenure (page 21), it also supported a system of representative proteted areas for a host of values (page 19). In effect the WMI acknowledges the same conflict the Government had been required to resolve. Even valid legal actions canbe overturned if they are not done for the reasons of the legislation, but rather for other reasons - that is, in bad faith. In his ruling the judge reconstructed the consultive process which lead first to the protection of the 31, then subsequently to the relisting of JCB. He cited these as demonstraton that the govrnment was taking its responsibility to balance the economics of mineral interests with a braoder public interest. Thus he dismissed the bad faith arguement. Another relevant aspect of the same argument was whether the Premier made the decision, or the Minister. (The Act says 'The Minister may'.) The judge rules that it was appropriate for the Minister to consult, and for such decission to be made in a braod er context of government policy. Finally, on the removal of access rights, (and there was an argument as to which Act access rights were granted under), the judge ruled that regardless of which Act was used, and whether or not property rights were involved, it was a breech of contract and therefore illegal. However, this in no way affects the validity of the moratorium, hence it is moot. (As long as the moratorium is valid Ragal can not explore, hence the access permit is irrelevant.) What's next? Regal can seek to appeal some aspect of the ruling, which, if succesful, could lead to invalidation of the relisting. That requires convincing a judge that it should be heard again because of some error in this process, and, if it is heard again, getting a different outcome. Even if that occurred, the Regal lawyer has pointed out that the Government could use the Expropriation Act. Apparently using the Expropriation Act triggers specific compensation processes. Regal's other option seems to be a civil suit to try to recover it's losses. Such a suit would not involve removing the protection of JCB. Colin Stewart (Just for the record, I'm not a lawyer, and the above reflects my understanding of what transpired, no one else's.)
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects