Other Tribunals - OMLT

The applicant sought an Order to Pay against the respondents for development expenditures on co-owned mining claims under s. 181(2) of the Mining Act.

Following an interim order and written submissions, the respondents consented to the issuance of the order subject to certain procedural conditions.

The Tribunal held that consent is not required under s. 181(2) and issued two orders: one establishing procedural steps for the upcoming liability hearing, including document exchange and discoveries, and a concurrent s. 181(2) Order to Pay.

The applicant, a co-owner of the Chester 2 Properties, brought an application under s. 181(2) of the Mining Act seeking payment from the respondent co-owners for their proportionate share of development expenditures.

The respondents had failed to contribute their 7.5% share of the costs over a four-year period.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay US$ 2,065,492.00, representing their share of the expenditures, plus interest.

The applicant and respondents are co-owners of mining properties.

The applicant sought an order under section 181 of the Mining Act for the respondents to pay their share of development expenditures.

The respondents claimed an oral agreement exempted them from these costs.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal determined the procedural steps for the liability phase of the hearing.

The Tribunal also held that an order under section 181(2) must be issued before a hearing on liability can proceed under section 181(4), and directed the applicant to confirm whether it requests such an order.

The applicant sought the use of surface rights on unpatented mining claims for a power transmission line.

After the respondent indicated an intention to appear at the scheduled in-person hearing, the applicant requested the matter proceed by written hearing.

The respondent consented.

The Tribunal ordered the cancellation of the in-person hearing and established a schedule for written submissions.

Goldcorp applied under section 175(1) of the Mining Act for a grant of surface rights over lands required to redevelop the Dome Underground and Open Pit mines.

Goldcorp owned the underlying mining rights but not the surface rights, which were held by various co-owners, many of whom were deceased or unlocatable.

After providing notice as ordered by the Tribunal, Goldcorp acquired the interests of the known and locatable heirs.

The Tribunal found that the surface rights were essential for the proper working of the mine and granted an order vesting the requested surface rights in Goldcorp.

The appellant appealed the cancellation of 18 mining claims by the Ministry of Energy, Northern Development and Mines.

The claims were cancelled because the lands were not legally open for mining claim registration at the time of registration.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellant did not file any submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal without a hearing pursuant to section 4.6(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Procedural Rules, finding it lacked jurisdiction because there were no legally existing mining claims to register.

The applicant proposed a dam and hydroelectric facility, which the Minister intended to refuse.

The applicant requested an inquiry under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) sought to be added as a party to the inquiry, arguing the decision would set a precedent for the waterpower industry.

The Inquiry Officers denied the request, finding that a concern about potential precedential effect is insufficient to establish a 'direct interest' as required by the Act.