Cliff/NOT had appealed the earlier Mining and Lands Commisioner (MLC) decision (Sept 2013) that Canada Chrome had priority for use of surface rights on the ‘NS corridor’ claims. The divisional court found for Cliff/NOT (Oct 2014) and overturned the MLC decision. The divisional court ruled that Canada Chrome/KWG had no priority to surface rights aside from those related to mining on a claim. It further ruled that KWG had not demonstrated any mineable resource on the NS claims and that KWG could not infringe on the crowns rights to allocate surface rights to others. Canada Chrome/KWG was granted the right to appeal the divisional courts 2014 decision.
The Canada Chrome/KWG appeal was heard by the Ontario Court of Appeals in Nov 2015. The decision denying Canada Chromes/KWG’s appeal and upholding the Divisional Court decision was made Feb 2016 (see below). If you read through the decision from the first link you will see that the Appeals Court acknowledges that the claim owners have surface rights to explore and to protect surfaces rights where there is (demonstrated) potential for mining. The Appeals Court specifically addressed the railway easement issue in stating that they did not have surface rights for an easement and the disposition of surface rights for multi-use(others) and sand/gravel/aggregate rights belong to the crown (with exception to the rights stated above.)
As such i’m not aware of any consent KWG could withhold on the southern portion of the road. The north claims near Bid Daddy etc would be a different story but even there it would be a ministry decision as to whether NOT could cross the claims with KWG plans having a big impact on the decision.