Your post says: "The Divisional Appeals Court of Canada, like the Office of the Ontario Mining and Lands Commissioner, is separated from state and is required to follow the provisions of the Mining, Lands, Aggregate and other Canadian Acts of law. In this case, there are no grounds for appeal."

I should have said the "Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario", not "Divisional Appeals Court of Canada" although both are separated from state. It is my own personal belief that there are no grounds for appeal.

The Ontario Divisional Court always cautions that "an appeal is different from a trial and is not a rehearing of the case. There can be no witnesses and no new evidence (except in very limited circumstances). Not all errors will change the outcome of a case on appeal."

So the AG legal-beagles will need about 5 min (no need to have 30min) to state just that, as a reminder for the Appeal Panel?

"The Province seeks to intervene on questions of law and takes no position as between the Appellant and Respondent with respect to the facts, or findings of fact, that may be at issue in the Appeal,” the ministry told CBC News in an email." "The Province’s interests in the matters on appeal are limited to the interpretation of sections 50 and 51 of the Mining Act." Those sections focus on the rights of licensees in staking or filing a mining claim and surface rights on unpatented mining claims.

The appeal is scheduled for June 16 and 17, 2014.

Or, they would venture out a bit more to say something about the power of the Prov as far as appropriation of land claims for the benefits of the public. Of course, fair compensation to KWG would be part of the scheme. If the Prov wants to do this then CLF Appeal would have no merit.

The Province will confined itself to questions on the courts interpretation of sections 50 and 51 of the Mining Act regarding the rights of licensees in staking or filing a mining claim and surface rights on unpatented mining claims.

What about Canada, does the Feds has higher authority than the Prov as far as land use is concerned. In other words if a (Fed) Port Authority needs the NS corridor to build an RR (along with a small service road), then the Feds would just acquire the corridor from KWG (with fair compensation or with co-operation from KWG), since the Feds would pour in the money to match other contributions to build the RR, ...and this is for the benefits of all Canadians. Again, CLF Appeal would have no merit in this case.

Land authority belongs to the “Crown” in right of Ontario. Non-Crown land is land, the surface rights, mining rights or the mining and surface rights of which are under lease or licence of occupation from the Crown, or land in the actual use or occupation of the Crown, the Crown in right of Canada, or of a department of the Government of Canada or a ministry of the Government of Ontario, or land the use of which is withdrawn or set apart or appropriated for a public purpose, or land held by a ministry of the Government of Ontario.

If CLF wants to be a nuissance by starting other (perpetual) legal proceedings (against the Province or the Feds) then the Court (which-ever court) would just throw the case out?

The appeal decision made by the Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario will be most definitive. Jealous I am of Justice Thomas Lederer as it is the rubik's cube of Canadian Mining law court cases!