SOMBA K'E/YELLOWKNIFE
The president of the NWT Mine Heritage Society and the public now know when an appeal on the demolition of the Robertson Headframe will be heard, but the secrecy surrounding the board that will hear the appeal continues.
Walt Humphries gets the chance to lay out his case for keeping the headframe on Oct. 6 when he is scheduled to appear in front of the City of Yellowknife's Development Appeal Board (DAB).
Even though city council appoints members to the board, city spokesperson Nalini Naidoo, has steadfastly refused to provide the names of the board members to Yellowknifer.
After combing the minutes of dozens of council meetings, Yellowknifer was able to determine that Georgina Rolt was appointed to the board on Dec. 14 of last year. Timothy Nichols, Jaison Abraham and Bill Gault were appointed to the board on June 23, 2015 and Daniel Korver and Margaret Kralt were appointed to the board on Feb. 24, 2014. City Councillor Niels Konge confirmed to Yellowknifer this week that he is the current council representative on the board. The public members of the board were appointed to three-year terms, according to council minutes.
The city's website states the DAB hears appeals regarding decisions of a development officer.
Naidoo stated in an e-mail that although the appeal hearing itself is open to the public, the board's deliberations and final decision are done behind closed doors.
It is unclear exactly when the board would make its decision on whether to issue a demolition permit for the headframe.
Cory Vanthuyne, MLA for Yellowknife North and former city councillor, said that he never actually sat on the DAB but thinks he understands the city's confidentiality issues surrounding it.
"Because you are dealing with companies and property owners - there may be a need to keep it a little more under wraps because of private information," Vanthuyne said. "By the time a matter comes to this board it could be contentious in nature. The reason it has gone that far is because someone believed that something wasn't done right in the first place. It could be neighbours against neighbours - you never know. There are maybe a lot of good reasons why that have to keep this board under closed doors."
Vanthuyne said that it is his understanding that part of the board's mandate is to keep emotions and things like petitions out of the decision-making process.
"They may look at (the petition) but it is very procedural. An appeal is because somebody believes that either a process or a bylaw and something has not been adhered to," Vanthuyne said. "If Miramar (owners of the headframe) did all that they were supposed to do relevant to their permit, (Humphries) really won't have anything to stand on if all steps and procedures were followed by the development officer."
Indeed, in a letter to the city, dated Sept. 14 and shared with Yellowknifer, Scott Stringer, general manager of Miramar, stated Humphries' appeal does not address the criteria that must be met in order for an appeal to be heard under the territorial government's Community Planning and Development Act.
"Mr. Humphries' letter of appeal does not even purport to address any of those statutory criteria," Stringer stated. "Accordingly, no valid appeal has been filed and the board is without jurisdiction to hear an appeal in this case. As such, even if one were to believe that everything Mr. Humphries says is true (which is denied) the statute dictates that the appeal must fail."
The letter goes on to request that the board confirm to all parties involved by Sept. 22 that no valid appeal has been filed. It also states that if Miramar if forced to go through what Stringer calls a futile appeal, it would result in significant cost and expense for which it would be entitled to compensation.
"Basic fairness requires that (Humphries) not be permitted to delay this project on the basis of an appeal that is on its face deficient," Stringer writes. "No matter where one's sympathies lie on this matter, the statute is clear and there can be no justification for proceeding any further in this case."
Humphries said he now has until next week to clarify and expand his appeal. He said that according to documents provided to him by the city, a person can appeal on the grounds that they would be adversely affected by the work.
"And then they list seven really technical things you can appeal on. Now I have to write another appeal that deals directly with the criteria," Humphries said. "That mine site got going before there was a Yellowknife. Yellowknife annexed the property. They don't have any rules for a mine site. They slapped their rules and regulations on top of a mine site as if it was just another parcel of land. It's not."
He added that will be part of his argument, that there is nothing in city legislation that deals specifically with mine sites.
The essence of Humphries' original argument is Miramar has failed to honour its obligation or negotiate in good faith with parties interested in saving the headframe.
"If the city grants the permit, they will be aiding and abetting Miramar in something this is akin to an ethical, moral and legal crime against the people of Yellowknife," Humphries writes in his appeal. "The city would not be doing its sworn duty to protect the interests of its residents."
According to Stringer, the demolition of the structure was to have begun this month.
