NevilleD, I believe that time period hinges on what transpires in the tribunal of Linda Kamerman, the Mining Commissioner, regarding Cliffs application for easement over KWG's corridor of staked mining claims. Here are some points to consider which may have an influence on the case;

- The Ontario Mining Act allows for "a party to a proceeding under this Act brought before the Commissioner and involving any right, privilege or interest or in connection with any patented lands, mining lands, mining claims or mining rights, may, at any stage of the proceeding, apply to the Superior Court of Justice for an order transferring the proceeding to that court." Regarding Aboriginal or treaty rights under the Ontario Mining Act, section 86.1, decrees that mining leases "are subject to the protection provided for existing Aboriginal or treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Lessee shall conduct itself on the demised premises in a manner consistent with the protection provided to any such rights."

- The CEAA's acceptance of a Comprehensive Study Environmental Assessment (EA) process, instead of a full Joint Review Panel (EA) for Cliffs Chromite Project is being challenged in Federal Court by the Matawa First Nation, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Assembly of First Nations verses the Attorney General of Canada and Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. This case will determine if there could be any "significant adverse effects on the environment", the extent of "public concern" and "infringement on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights". James Bay Treaty No. 9, and 5, and section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1980 guarantees First Nations the constitutional right to be consulted and accommodated on matters that affect them and their traditional lands.

- At the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association (NOMA) annual meeting in Kenora, on Friday, April 27, 2012, the Aboriginal Affairs Minister Wynne said she is working directly with other ministries to resolve issues, address concerns and reach agreements to move the project forward to meet the interests of all involved. “Negotiations are ongoing that aren’t public and can’t be talked about,” she said. The Aroland First Nation was obligated to file a freedom of information act, as the Ontario government and Cliffs Natural Resources had been holding confidential meetings in advance of the announcement of the Sudbury ferrochrome smelter.

- Gregory McDade, with the B.C. based law firm Ratcliff and Company has been hired to commense litigation against Ontario for breach of their legal duties in reaching an "agreement in principle for key elements" of Cliffs' chromite project before consulting the Neskantaga First Nation.

- KWG was bringing mining claims to lease for the purpose of making economic the Big Daddy joint venture’s undertakings with Cliffs. As the holder of the corridor mining claims, KWG has the right prior to any subsequent right to the use of the surface rights on these claims. KWG contends that the Crown may not effect an expropriation from a minority joint-venturer in order to prefer the exclusive interest of the majority joint-venturer.

- June 1st, 2012 was the last day to formally file evidence with the Mining and Lands Commissioner.

The great majority of cases received during this reporting period were resolved in less
than two months. However, when necessary, on average, it took two to two and a half months for the Office to receive the necessary documentation to proceed with an appeal/application and a further two and a half months to hear and decide the matter.

The Office continues to enjoy a considerable overall settlement rate. The target was to
maintain its range of between 70 and 92%. The settlement rate was exceeded at 95%. It is pointed out that even with many settlements, it is necessary for the Commissioner to make statutory decisions.

For mining cases, within the 2010 calendar year, 98% of cases settled. The few which
did not, from previous years, can be described as labyrinthine, oftentimes taking years to reach their conclusion and often involving more than one hearing and the issuance of a significant number of interlocutory decisions before the final decision.