LauraB

Your post says: "Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, through the Ontario Divisional Court, in a rare intervention, influenced Justice Thomas Lederer in his decision on Ontario/Cliff's easement appeal decision who then ruled that the Ontario Mining and Lands Commissioner, an "inferior" court, should have allowed Ontario and Cliffs to expropriate the mining corridor in the public interest. Ontario and Cliffs had already reached a tentative business agreement to develop a north south mining corridor together."

Questions:

1. Did Justice Lederer say the OM&L Commission [an 'inferior" court] or was it your interpretation of the ruling?

2. Is it confirmed, in writing (at least on some e-mail) that "Ontario and Cliffs had already reached a tentative business agreement to develop a north south mining corridor together."? If so, all this should be available in the ruling.

And this would include

-$600M subsidy for the private road for CLF;

- Electricity subsidy for the electric arc furnace; and

- Compensation to KWG if its claims are expropriated for CLF private road (justification for public interest would be a tricky one).

3. Presumably Ontario has already called Casablanca to see if the new CLF would be prepared to spend $3.3B to develop BT? If short answer is NO...then what?

goldhunter