Prospectors welcome court ruling

Two claims in northwestern Ontario staked by Ray Ramsay in 1986 were cancelled a year later by a mining recorder because of a number of defects in the staking. The recorder’s decision was upheld by the mining and lands commissioner in an appeal.

Ramsay took his case to the divisional court of the Supreme Court of Ontario, which in May of this year overturned the earlier orders.

Central to the case is the recorder’s finding that “the doctrine of substantial compliance does not cure the accumulation of defects.” (“Substantial compliance” has been interpreted to mean complying essentially with the legal requirements insofar as circumstances reasonably permit. In the recorder’s view, the amount of defects, minor or otherwise, was sufficient to invalidate the claims.)

Staking defects listed by the recorder include four undersized corner posts, two tags placed on the wrong face of a corner post, and the use of a common witness post for reference to more than one corner.

Anthony Andrews, managing director of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, called the court decision “precedent setting.” The effect, he suggested, will be to broaden, rather than restrict, an interpretation of “substantial compliance.”

Ramsay, a Barrie, Ont., resident who has been prospecting for about 30 years, said he has always gotten along with government officials but decided to appeal “because in this case, it just didn’t seem right.” He said he has been using common witness posts for about 20 years and “suddenly they are illegal.”

The claims in question, parts of which are located in a lake, were staked by Ramsay at the end of September, 1986. The weather was poor and magnetic interference in the area distorted his compass readings.

In his written statement, the judge points out the importance of staking claims properly, insofar as poor staking may mislead people and cause other problems. However, the judge differs with the commissioner over “substantial compliance,” which the judge says is not a doctrine but a statutory sta ndard.

While the commissioner relies for his interpretation on a previous case, the judge says each case must be dealt with on its own facts.

“In my opinion, there could be substantial compliance notwithstanding a great number of technical inconsistencies,” says the judge in ruling the evidence establishes substantial compliance by Ramsay. The judge directs the recorder to order the necessary corrections be made in the staking and the official record.

]]>