Letter to the Editor Metalore counterclaim against Ontex to

First, the article stated that “the court (Supreme Court of Ontario) dismissed a counterclaim by Metalore against Ontex.” The fact is that after our agreement with Hudson Bay Gold had expired, our counterclaim against Ontex was more than doubled to over $100 million and it certainly has not been, nor is it about to be dismissed.

Secondly, your article states that “Hudson Bay backed out of an option with Metalore which included the possibility of sinking an 1,800 ft shaft.” Hudson Bay did not “back out” nor did Metalore. The “option” agreement was contingent upon Ontex signing a simple consent form, which would have allowed the development by Hudson Bay to proceed, without prejudicing the legal action. The agreement ultimately expired.

Thirdly, the Ontex spokesman stated in your article that he “realistically” expected the court date to be sometime during the third quarter (1989), possibly in September knowing full well that this would not be plausible because of the continuous delays they have perpetrated. Examinations for discovery are a prime example: One of their principal witnesses (and a defendant by our counterclaim) has had court appointments scheduled twice already and has failed to appear for discovery both times. The last time that I personally was scheduled for a final full week of discovery last November, even the Ontex lawyer couldn’t make it and they have even put off our requests for rescheduling.

Metalore and myself, are looking forward to the day when we can conclude these litigious exercises and concentrate once again on discovering more orebodies. George W. Chilian, President Metalore Resources Limited Simcoe, Ont. Editor’s note: We incorrectly reported Jan 23 that the court had dismissed a counterclaim by Metalore against Ontex. In fact, the court dismissed a completely separate action brought by Metalore against Ontex without prejudice to Metalore. Metalore has stated its intention to reinstitute that claim.

]]>