Thanks LauraB for your clarifications.

Still wondering,

1. If there were doubt from a more superior court about the status of the Commission then why CLF easement application was allowed to be submitted to the Commission for a ruling?

The Commission was set up as a Tribunal to hear applications such as the easement application submitted by CLF. Its ruling is certainly subject to an appeal process, just like any legal case. If the upper court found the Commission has made a error in its judgement/decision then it would be fair game for the upper court to identify it as the reason to set aside the Commission's ruling.

But in my opinion, the question regarding the status of the Commision should not be a topic of discussion, or a factor, in the CLF vs KWG Appeal hearing. If there is doubt about the relevance of the Commission then it should perhaps be scrapped to avoid confusion, inefficiency in the "court" system.

What a waste of time for everybody. Back to square 1.

2. It's understood that the government has never confirmed the matching funds of $600M for the road. It could be just a deduction from various sources as you have listed.

Just noted in the excerpt below that the NNDM mentioned an industrial road (not exclusively for CLF only), but it did not say anything about a public road...so where is public interest for this transportation corridor?

Excerpt: MNDM advised Noront that "the current expectation is that the all-season road would be made available for use by industrial users other than Cliffs

It would be quite revealing if this $600M was on a piece of e-mail somewhere in the system, (it must be in some communication) lol!

goldhunter