In regard to the CLF appeal decision. My understanding is that an appeal cannot hear or consider new evidence, but must only make a decision based solely on evidence already presented and on interpretation of applicable laws. In the original decision, it was clearly stated "no evidence was brought to show CLF plans were in the public interest" How then was it possible to decide these same CLF plans were in the public interest, since no evidence was or could be presented to convey that impression?

I think it likely CLf realise this appeal 'decision' stands on expremely shaky ground, and they are possibly liable for the damage caused to KWG and the public interest(ONTARIO NORTHLAND??) by their obstructive behaviour. They are considering bankrupcy in order to prevent any award for damages actually resulting in payment, as well as payments resulting from closure of Bloom Lake.