noront dropped those claims most likely at cliffs request because of them thinking the tribunal was coming to a conclusion
Do you mean that CLF might have requested NOT to give up those claims because CLF thought that the tribunal would award it easement? Even if CLF gets easement and their private road, they still can't block NOT from using it.
I fell off my chair when I saw NOT dispose of those claims because they pre-dated the Crown's Order No. W-TB-172/11, dated January 17, 2012, which means that if the commissioner does not grant easement, those claims of NOT's would have stood. Ok, sure, NOT breaks KWG's RR so called "contiguious" in other places like Koper Lake, so why bother, but NOT had KWG by the curlies in two places! Why would they give that up?