Feature Article January 30, 2002
LAND O'LAKES NewsWeb HomeContact Us
Mining Claims become Landowners nightmaresby Jeff GreenOn a Saturday afternoon in August of 2000, the Griesbachs, who own a 175 acre property off the Westport Road in what used to be Bedford Township, were walking about their land when they found that some larger trees, at least 8 inches in diameter, had been cut down and turned into stakes which were dotting my land, recounts Peter Griesbach. I went to the house and called the OPP to report on the trespassing and damage, and they referred me to the Mininstry of Mines and Northern Development. Things have gone on from there, he adds.
At the time, Peter Griesbach knew nothing about surface rights versus mining rights, the rules of staking, the rights of prospectors vis-vis landowners, or the Ontario Mining Act; but he sure does now. In the past 17 months he has become an expert on the ins and outs of various mining issues, has filed two disputes with the mining commissioner, and has even gone as far as obtaining a prospectors license and staking his own land in order to highlight the illegalities of the original staking.
He was successful in having one of the four claims he was disputing declared illegal - the one on his neighbours land. I saved my neighbour, he says, but I didnt save myself.
Most recently, in a decision dated December 21, the matter has been held, pending submissions by the Griesbachs and responses by Graphite Mountain Inc., the prospecting and mining company in question. For reasons that Peter Griesbach declined to comment on last week, the entire matter is now indefinitely suspended. Griesbach will only say that it is on a technical matter.
Peter Griesbach was blissfully unaware of the difference between surface and mining rights back in August of 2000. For much of the land in southern Ontario, the crown did not cede the mineral rights when it granted patents to the land. In these cases, the land is open to prospecting, staking, and mining, and the normal regulations about trespassing on private land are circumvented by the Mining Act. (see the article Surface and Mining Rights).
In the case of the Griesbachs land, the mining rights had been held by the owner of the land until 1951. But, according to Roy Spooner, the provincial mining recorder for Southern Ontario The former owners of the mining rights allowed the mining rights to be forfeited to the crown by failing to pay taxes.
None of this was mentioned to the Griesbachs when they bought their land, because the title search that real estate lawyers perform for their clients only goes back 40 years, and more than 40 years had passed since 1951, when the Griesbachs purchased the land.
Graphite Mountain Inc. has staked claims in a wide area in what used to be Bedford Township, and in an area of BBS township in Lanark. They have applied for a mining license on the property they have been exploring on New Road, just north of the Westport road, according to the newsletter of the Bedford Mining Alert, a group that has sprung up to oppose the mining act. The newsletter adds that Graphite Mountain has also bought a property in Perth, where they plan to process the ore. Meanwhile, back in October, Maureen Towaij, who lives on a property near Long Lake in Lanark County on the other side of Westport, heard from neighbours that there were historic surveys of mines in the area. She checked the Ministry of Mines website, and found that rather than a historic survey of mines existing, her land had actually been staked in March of 2001, by Graphite Mountain. I was in complete disbelief, she remembers, adding I called our township and asked for a public meeting. I soon found out that, under section 48 of the Mining Act, we only had one year to dispute the claim. I had already lost seven months. The act does not obligate the prospector to even inform me. In my view, the entire Mining Act is archaic. Recently, Maureen Towaij has been involved in the formation of a mining concern group in BBS township, along the lines of the Bedford Mining Alert, and the two groups will be working co-operatively in their attempt to have the Mining Act changed. Maureen Towaij is also intending to file a dispute to the mining claim on her property with the ministry. For both Maureen Towaij and Peter Griesbach, the issue of privacy is paramount. Ultimately, says Peter Griesbach, no matter who owns the mining rights, the question is: Is the surface mine? Do I enjoy privacy on my own land?. This points to a seemingly irreconcilable problem that arises from the splitting of surface and mining rights. It is impossible for a prospector to get to the subsurface without trampling over the surface, but that surface belongs to a landowner, who might want to know who is coming onto their land, and why.
The Graphite Mountain mining proposals and practices have revealed aspects of the Mining Act that conflict sharply with the modern use of the eastern Ontario landscape. Many citizens and town councillors, both the BBS council and the South Frontenac Council, have taken strong stances against the Graphite Mountain mining proposals, see future economic growth in their region primarily in terms of settlement by young families and retirees, and an increase in tourism. The Bedford Mining Alert newsletter sums it up in this way: There are lots of minerals in Bedford District, and it will come down to whether this area will focus on recreation and tourism and maintaining its pastoral agricultural heritage, or move towards mineral extraction. These are not compatible activities.
Well have more on the Mining Act in future issues of The News.
