Japan Gold Corporation is a Canadian mineral exploration company focused solely on gold and copper - gold exploration in Japan, holding 32 prospecting rights and 178
prospecting rights applications in Japan over 17 separate projects.
Since September 2016, the company has grown its portfolio to 210
prospecting rights applications accepted on Japan's three main islands, Hokkaido, Honshu, and Kyushu for a combined 69,505 hectares over 17 projects.
All of
the prospecting rights applications covering these projects have been accepted, reserving the ground for Japan Gold and allowing for surface forms of exploration such as mapping, geochemical sampling and geophysics.
It comprises 56
prospecting rights applications, 23 of which have been granted as Prospecting Rights by the Japanese Ministry of Energy, Trade and Industry (METI), authorizing the Company to commence more advanced exploration methods, including drilling.
Not exact matches
Thirty - two of the
applications have already been granted as
Prospecting Rights.
The Appellant and the contracting company brought
applications to dismiss the complaint under s. 27 (1) of the Human
Rights Code, which provides that a complaint may be dismissed if it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the acts or omissions alleged do not contravene the Code, there is no reasonable
prospect the complaint will succeed, or proceeding with the complaint would not further the purposes of the Code.
adjudication, Dabic v. Windsor Police Service, discrimination, dismissed
application, employment, employment law, fairness, human
rights code, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano paralegal Toronto, reasonable prospect, Summary Hearings, the Code, Tribunal, Wilson v. J Sterling Indu
rights code, Human
Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano paralegal Toronto, reasonable prospect, Summary Hearings, the Code, Tribunal, Wilson v. J Sterling Indu
Rights Tribunal of Ontario, Kevin Sambrano paralegal Toronto, reasonable
prospect, Summary Hearings, the Code, Tribunal, Wilson v. J Sterling Industries
It is inconsistent with human
rights principles that the
right to negotiate be removed by the blanket
application of a formula that pre-empts a proper consideration of the effect of an exploration or
prospecting licence on native title.
[90] The sheer number of exploration permit
applications in the backlog (let alone mining lease
applications) raises the real
prospect that regardless of their procedural
rights at law, native title holders and claimants may be denied the practical opportunity to exercise those
rights if the backlog is processed within this timeframe.
While the Taskforce Paper was not specific, it appears that the recommendations envisaged that, in return for the enactment of a heritage survey agreement requirement, native title parties may be required to give up their statutory
right to object when and if the expedited procedure is applied to exploration and
prospecting licence
applications.
The Taskforce Paper recommended that mining lease
applications should be subject to the full
right to negotiate processes under the NTA, but that the expedited procedure should be applied to all
applications for exploration and
prospecting licences.