Hah, very kind!

Now I will show you how wrong I can be. They made a claim under Section 67 which turns out to give them the possibility that the claims will be returned to them.

I don't think they deserve to get them back...but on the other hand if the purpose is to encourage mining and work in BC clearly Carmax is better holding the claims. I'm not sure though how much that counts.

I could only find one example of this happening in BC and the forfeiture was reversed because the MT online website was down during the filing period. If Carmax is relying on not knowing the amalgamation would change the dates I don't think that counts for much.

I really think, my opinon only, that they have been given a week to sort things out and will be trying to buy them back. My guess is they will pay for them and might even have to offer a NSR.

Restoration of leases or claims forfeited because of expiry of time for compliance

67 (1) In this section, "intervening claim" means a claim that is in respect of land that was subject to a forfeited claim or an expired lease and is registered in the period between

(a) the date the record of the forfeited claim or expired lease was deleted from the registry, and

(b) the date the chief gold commissioner makes an order in respect of the forfeiture or expiry under subsection (2).

(2) Even if a claim is forfeited or a lease expires under this Act because the recorded holder fails to comply with a requirement of this Act within a time limit, the chief gold commissioner, by order, may set aside the forfeiture or the effect of the expiry and allow a further period of time for compliance.

(3) The chief gold commissioner, under section 6.36, may delete an intervening claim from the registry.

(4) No legal proceeding lies or may be commenced or maintained, and no compensation is payable, in respect of a deletion under subsection (3).