goldhunter,

If CLF does not appeal, my assumption is that they will have to pay for the legal/court costs KWG has incurred due to this easement thing (CLF started it).

Section 126 of the Mining Act vests the Commissioner with the discretion to award costs to any party. In this case, each motion's costs are being assessed separately.

The tribunal has yet to render a "costs" decision on the "Preliminary Motion to Exclude Evidence", brought by Cliffs. The tribunal had decided to await it's final easement application decision before awarding costs to either party and each party has already submitted their "Evidence of Settlement" costs.

You will remember that sealed portions of KWG's testimony were read out loud during the July 6th, 2012 public hearing, by KWG's co-counsel, Neal Smitheman. Revealing court sealed and commercially sensitive information is against the law.

Much of the ten sections of KWG's evidence contested by Cliffs that were sealed in June 2012 should never been included in their submission and the Commissioner excluded them.

I expect KWG will be ordered to reimburse some portion of Cliffs "Preliminary Motion to Exclude Evidence" costs it incurred while Cliffs will be ordered to pay some portion of KWG's "Evidence" costs as a consequence of the outcome of the final easement order.

The tribunal’s final decision on costs will address the earlier motion for costs and the costs of the hearing on the merits. (Barring an appeal, expect that decision possibly in late November or December.)

The final decision on easement by the tribunal orders Cliffs to pay all of CCC's legal costs related to the hearing of the merits. (See MA 005-12-FINAL ORDER - 2274659 v CCC.pdf, set out in the Order section.)

• IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event that an appeal of this Order is not filed or a judicial review of this Order is not brought, pursuant to sections 133, 134 and 135 of the Mining Act, that Canada Chrome Corporation file submissions on costs related to the hearing of the merits of this matter, with the tribunal and with 2274659 Ontario Inc., by the 9th day of October, 2013 and that 2274659 Ontario Inc., file its response with the tribunal and Canada Chrome Corporation by the 16th day of October, 2013 and that Canada Chrome Corporation file its response (if necessary) with the tribunal and 2274659 Ontario Inc., by the 28th day of October, 2013; all filings to not exceed ten (10) pages.

Again, the tribunal is ordering Cliffs, given no appeal or judicial review, to pay CCC's legal costs for the hearing of merits. It further orders CCC to produce an accounting of it's legal costs of the hearing on the merits. Cliffs then has their chance to respond to the validity of CCC's submission of it's merit costs. At which point, CCC could counter Cliffs response on those submitted merit costs.

Logically, if Cliffs appeals the case, then the tribunal must wait for the Divisional Court of Appeals or judicial review decision before making such an order.

Costs are in the order of $1M (according Moe L., I think. You may want to check this out yourself to be sure).

This is an assumption. Only KWG Resources knows it's legal costs of the merits motion and would not make that information public.

However, let's make some assumptions based on what we do know.

Professional and consultants’ fees decreased by $206,000 (cumulative increase of $125,000) compared to 2012 due to the investigation of possible business opportunities and legal fees incurred to contest a request for an easement by Cliffs. (MD&A June, 2013)

Consulting and professional fees during the first 6 months of 2013 were $766K, compared to $642K for the first 6 months of 2012 and $1.4M for all of 2012. (F/S ending June 30, 2013, and Dec 31, 2012)

Since these fees are not further subdivided, we can only assume that some smaller part of consulting fees and some larger part of the professional fees can be attributed to the easement case. We can only guess what portions are recorded from 2013 and 2012.

From KWG's previous financial statements, my guess, and it's a big guess, is that the evidence and merit costs might approach $700,000. That is a very substantial amount. Just the merit costs required 10 days in court, out of court research, administrative and legal fees, and a sizable, experienced legal team.

The tribunal will ultimately decide what portion of the $700,000, if, in fact, that is anywhere close to the actual amount, Cliffs will be ordered to pay.

Any reference to the awarding of costs regarding this case as a "$1M jackpot" is very misleading. A "jackpot" infers winning something. KWG has won nothing. It must pay all of these costs to it's lawyers.

The appeal option is there, but this would most likely cause delays in the development of the RoF, especially the RR and KWG BH.

Cliffs appeal option, while there, if exercised, would cause absolutely no delay in the development of KWG's ROF railway, nor the mining feasibility studies about to take place on Black Horse. An appeal would actually only cause delays in the development of Cliffs participation in the ROF.

Remember, "An appeal is different from a trial and is not a rehearing of the case. There can be no witnesses and no new evidence (except in very limited circumstances). Not all errors will change the outcome of a case on appeal. "Guide_to_Appeals_in_Divisional_Court_EN.pdf

And if CLF is lost again, it may be liable for additional court costs and loss of business opportunities for KWG (and this could be huge).

If Cliffs does decide to appeal, the cost just to file the initial paperwork is $50,000. It might be many years before a final appeal decision would be rendered.

Certainly, at that point, there could be an award of additional court costs, loss of business opportunities, and the real possibility of punitive damages.

Finally, Cliffs has until the end of Wednesday, October 9th, 2013, to appeal the decision to the Divisional Court under the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Mining Act, Section 134 (1) states that "...where an appeal may be brought, it is brought within 30 days after notice of the order...". The Act does not say "business" days.

Further, Section 138 says "...expires or falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or any other day on which the relevant office is closed, the time so limited extends to and the thing may be done on the day next following that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or other day on which the relevant office is closed." This is not the case and does not apply.