Prospector, lawyers go head to head tonight over Yellowknife headframe

Tonight promises a spirited legal sparring match centering on the future of Yellowknife's much-debated Robertson headframe.

In one corner: Miramar Northern Mining, which, after nearly a decade of waiting, wants to get on with demolishing the headframe and make good on its obligation to clean upthe Con Mine gold site. The company will be represented by lawyers from theYellowknife law firmLawson Lundell.

In the other corner: WaltHumphries, a local prospector and self-described "bush lawyer" who, thanks to a combination of luck and pluck, has already succeeded in delaying the start of demolition by more than two weeks and wants to see if he can savethe N.W.T.'s tallest structure standing for all time.

Humphries, who is not a lawyer, is representing himself.

"I think we have a real chance of stopping them," he says.

But for all his passion, Humphries faces an uphill legal battle.

Hearing tonight in Yellowknife at 7:30 p.m.

The two sides will make their arguments in front of the City of Yellowknife's development appeal board tonight at 7:30 p.m., in ahearing that is open to the public.

Humphriesfiled hisappeal ofMiramar'spermit to demolish the headframe on Sept. 12,six days before the company had planned to start tearing it down.

"If we can delay it for a year or two, then so much the better," says Humphries.

With both the city and the N.W.T. government having given up on saving the headframe, the appeal board will be focused not on whether saving itis a public good which forms some of Humphries' argument but rather ona technicality: whether the city made mistakesin permitting the demolition.

"Mr. Humphries, like some in the community, has a subjective attachment to the headframe. This appeal is not about debating the merits of those positions," wrote Toby Kruger and Jim Fraser, the twolawyers representing Miramar, in a response to Humphries' appeal.

"It is not for the board to wade into that debate where the political process has failed."

Firm argues Humphries' appeal has no legal weight

Fraser and Kruger argue that Humphries' appeal is invalid and that the appeal hearing shouldn't even take place because Humphries who is also the president of N.W.T. Mining Heritage Society is not "adversely affected" by Miramar's plans, according to the N.W.T.'s Community Planning and Development Act.

For that reason, before the actual appeal hearing even begins, Humphries will have to argue why his appeal should be heard.

Milan Nguyen, a development officer with the city who has suggestedthat the permit is legitimate, agrees that the term "adversely affected" normally applies to nearby or adjacent property owners.

But Nguyen adds that "'adversely affected' is a subjective term" and could extend beyond "personal proprietary interests."

Humphries' says Con forever a minesite

So what exactly does Humphries intend to argue?

In addition to being "adversely affected," he must prove that the permit doesn't meet one of six conditions outlined in the Act.Humphries has seized on a sectionthat disallows permits from being used for a "non-conforming" building or use.

His two-partargument goes roughly like this: because the remaining gold underlying Con Mine may yet prove minable, tearing down the headframe would strip the site which, in his mind, will forever remain a mine site, even if remediated of a crucial asset. Also: a mine site is incompatible with the city's long-term plans to develop the area around Con Mine, including plans for a multi-use outdoor recreation facility.

"To call this piece of land the same as untouched bush is just crazy," he says.

Decision could take as long as 60 days

The development appeal board has up to 60 days to make its decision, which couldpush the demolition even further off track, to early December.

"It doesn't typically take that long, however," said Debbie Gillard, the clerk of the appeal board.

The board usually includesone city councillor. But the councillor appointed to sit on it,Niels Konge,has said he won't participate in tonight's hearing because of comments he's made in support of saving the headframe.

"It wouldn't be appropriate," he said last week.

Miramar's lawyers had alsocalled for Kongeto be pulledfrom tonight's hearing.

Headframeneeds to come down, says company

Miramar maintains it never even had to file for the demolition permit, but did so out of goodwill after being asked to bythe city.

For the company,a swift resolution would finally bring it close to the end of itscleanup of theCon Mine.

"All too often, particularly in the North, past mining operations haveleft a costly and derelict legacy in their wakes," Miramar's lawyers wrote in theirresponse to Humphries. "Residents of Yellowknife know too well of the ruin that can result from closed mines that have not employed proper procedures to decommission their operations.

"Regardless of what one's attachment to the Robertson headframe may be, it is no different than any other mining infrastructure that the regulatory regime requires to be reclaimed."

Miramar's permit application cited a six-month operating window for the demolition. Afinal closure and remediation plan dated 2007 said the headframe would be gradually stripped anddemolished using "mechanical means."

The company declined to be interviewed for this article.