The appeal can only be based on a perceived misinterpretation of the law, and no new evidence can be introduced. This means neither CLF nor any other party can now contend the road easement is 'in the public interest' since no evidence to that effect was given originally. By my reading of the law, the owner/holder of a claim has first priority to both surface rights and to permits for sand & gravel. Evidence was given originally that there is not space for both a 100 metre road easement and a railway, also that CLFs proposed road would run along the exact line of CCC's route, and even used CCC borehole information in planning.

The AGO (Att. General, not Art Gallery) cannot introduce evidence or dispute the original ruling, and can only explain aspects of the laws that apply as they see them. If the Ontario Govt wants to step in to get a road easement 'in the public interest' they will have to start another separate application.