'This needs to end,' Miramar lawyer says in battle to tear down Robertson headframe

"This needs to end. And it needs to end now."

Those words — either spirit-dampening or perfectly rational, depending on which side of the Robertson headframe debate you're on — capped lawyer Jim Fraser's arguments for why Miramar Northern Mining, the company cleaning up Yellowknife's contaminated Con Mine gold mine, should be allowed to tear down the headframe after almost a decade of waiting.

In a public, standing-room only hearing at Yellowknife city hall Thursday night, Fraser painted Walt Humphries, the local prospector mounting a last-ditch attempt to save the headframe, as someone "needlessly" delaying work that Miramar remains legally obligated to carry out, following failed efforts to save the headframe from both the city and the territorial government.

"It's the last hurdle" to completing the remediation plan, said Fraser, adding that as the demolition project approaches the winter season, the risk of escalating costs goes up. Miramar's application for the permit to demolish the headframe already tallies that cost at $650,625.

Scott Stringer, Miramar's general manager at the Con Mine site, said after the hearing that the colder winter season could slow the pace of work and potentially even cause a delay of a couple months.

Before Humphries filed his appeal against the permit, the company had hoped to begin the demolition — using a combination of tear-down methods and explosives — on Sept. 12.

• Read the live blog from Thursday's appeal board hearing
• ANALYSIS | Prospector, lawyers go head to head tonight over Yellowknife headframe

The 'adversely affected' test

The hearing essentially centered around whether Humphries could legitimately claim to be "adversely affected" by the removal of the headframe.

Fraser, in clinical attorney mode, cited previous case law and said that wanting something to be declared a landmark doesn't cut it as a personal grievance.

A lawyer for the city concurred, saying, "A development officer can't say, 'I don't like the type of house you're going to build.'"

"I've spent more time, effort and money than anyone else in Yellowknife trying to save the headframe. So I have a stake in this," Humphries said in retort.

Fate of headframe in the hands of 5

The five members of the development appeal board who presided over the hearing — all Yellowknife citizens appointed by the city — will ultimately decide which side is right, and if the demolition can proceed.  

But who are these people?

Four out of five board members work for the territorial government, in a variety of roles.

They are:

• Bill Gault, a manager for the Department of Public Works and Services;
• Georgina Rolt, a labour relations advisor to the Department of Human Resources;
• Tim Nichols, a marketing and communications manager in the government's airports division;
• and Daniel Korver, a registered architect working for the N.W.T. Housing Corporation.

The fifth member, chair Margaret Kralt, works for Dillon Consulting.

None of the stone-faced board members asked a single question of either Humphries or Fraser, though Kralt gradually emerged as a no-nonsense presiding force.

When, near the midpoint of the two-hour proceeding, Humphries began revisiting the topic of whether there existed a written agreement between the city and Miramar for the city to take over the headframe, Kralt cut him off, saying he was talking about things that were outside the board's scope.

And when an audience member in support of Humphries, Tamlin Gilbert, disagreed out loud with a statement made by Miramar lawyer Fraser, Kralt sternly warned Gilbert that if he spoke out loud again, he would be ejected from the room.

Humphries to city: Thanks for nothing

The hearing was a study in contrasts, with Humphries and his trademark ZZ-Top beard and vest and Fraser and his colleague Toby Kruger in suits and well-armed with often impenetrable legal jargon.

Humphries complained that the City of Yellowknife was no help to him in preparing his appeal. He said there was no information on the city's website, that he had to physically go down to city hall to get some direction and that he was told to write "a simple letter" of appeal — only to be bombarded with a barrage of legal terms by Fraser.

Humphries said the city refused to even show him the development permit granted to Miramar, forcing him to write his appeal "blind." He said the city ultimately gave him "bad advice."

Fraser countered that Humphries could have hired a lawyer, instead of representing himself. But Humphries told CBC News that he asked five Yellowknife lawyers for help, and was told by all of them that they would be in a conflict of interest.

"Unlike my opponents, I'm not being paid to be here," said Humphries in a moment of exasperation.

"Believe me, I'm not being paid to be here either," replied board chair Kralt.

60-day deadline for decision

The appeal board began its deliberations immediately after the meeting.

Though the board has up to 60 days to make a decision, secretary Debbie Gillard said the board generally makes its decision much sooner than that, and that Humphries and Miramar's lawyers will be the first to know.

Humphries has been documenting his campaign on the page for a Facebook group called "Save the Frame."

His final words to the board?

"The best, most logical thing to do is to save that headframe."