Laserfiche WebLink
`~ t~~ <br />z:: ' <br />a 4i;. <br />.. <br />.~( <br />;~i984 / and they did so. .However, ^ ~~~ ; a~-~~~3-~ moo= ae--e :: <br />„- . <br />:','time of the. hearing, no written permit had been issued nor had the <br />~=:plaintiff signed a necessary approval for transfer of the permit for <br />t ~~the mine to the Receiver.' The Receiver's involvement in t}Lese matters <br />-',is unclear, but it appears to the Court that he delegated substantial <br />..,$uthority to the Defendants themselves. <br />P ~ <br />' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />E ?1 <br />4 ~-,~. '1. The Dbfendants did opeY'ate the subject mine in violation <br />of the Court's order of January 26, 1984, but this violation does <br />not appear to have been a willful disregard of the order. Rather, <br />~ooamunications to the Defendants from the MLRD, some of which were <br />innocently misinterp{•eted by the Defendants, led the Defendants to <br />..act as they did, and the Court concludes that it would be improper <br />`t~to find them in contempt of court. <br />2. THe Court is concerned that Mr. Hobbs as Receiver has not <br />assumed as much responsibility ror sup'erVising and managing the <br />subject mine as he should have and perhaps this is due to the lack <br />of specificity of his duties in the order of appointment. Thus <br />the Court needs to clarify these responsibilities. The Court con- <br />tinues to repose confidence in the Receiver, but believes he needs to <br />take a more active role in the management of the subject mine than <br />he has following his appointment. <br />3. For the mine to operate in strict accordancc_ with the law, <br />the MLRD permit needs to be transferred to the Receiver, and said <br />' transfbr requires the approval of the Plaintiff. <br />WHEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THE'COURT, <br />1. That the Defendants are not in contempt of court, and the <br />Plaintiff's motion seeking an order to that effect is denied. <br />is <br />~ 2. Mr. Randy Hobbs is to continue to act as P.t;~•civer in this <br />case under the terms of the Court's Order of Januaz~; 16, 1984, except <br />E. that he shall be responsible for ascertaining that tY,~ subject mine <br />is being legally operated, and shall not be permitter to delegate <br />" Management decisions, but he may delegate routine daily administrative <br />..decisions. Management decisions include decisions as to whether <br />Ieining can legally be pursued, when the mine should he in operation, <br />production goals, guidelines for marketing, policy decisions, decisions <br />e' ':with respect to sales prices, and decisions regarding the expenditure <br />of funds of $350 or more. Administrative decisions relate, to resolving <br />k:: Youtine problems arising in daily operation of the mine, utilization of <br />equipment, dispatching trucks, implementing management decisions, and <br />y making decisions involving the expenditure of less .hen 5350. The <br />Receiver shall have final responsibility for maintaining and reclaiming <br />the subject mine site. <br />v . <br />f <br />} _2_ <br />