By Staff
April 22, 2014
BURLINGTON ON
We received the following recently.
Burlington Gazette
Burlington, Ontario
Dear Sirs:
Re: Burlington Airpark Inc. -Libel Notice to Burlington Gazette
We are the solicitors for Burlington Airpark Inc., the operator of the Burlington Executive Airport (collectively “Airport”). This letter is to serve as notice pursuant to s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act R.S .O. 1990 Chap. L.12.
Under the date of April 11, 2014 the following appeared on the website https://www.burlingtongazette .ca/:
“Was it the cold winter that resulted in hundreds of dead fish floating on the pond of the Appleby Line property that is surrounded on three sides by the Air Park land fill or is the death of the fish the result of toxic and silt filled water now in the pond?
The argument as to whether the land fill was going to do any real damage has been simmering in the background. Some testing was done but the
A spring fed pond with hundreds of fish – normally. Today wasn’t a normal day on the Appleby Line property. Hundreds of dead fish were floating n the water this morning
Ministry of the Environment got involved in a struggle over who was entitled to the information from their testing results -privacy issues came into play and the privacy officers at every level of government seem to be taking the time they feel they needed to determine just who can see what.
The spring fed pond is yards away from a mountain of landfill that was never properly tested when it was dumped on the property.
Runoff from the landfill is now getting to the water table -dead fish are showing up in the pond.
Some of the evidence may have come to the surface – literally, for one resident. Hundreds of dead fish were found floating on her pond this morning . That pond is yards away from a 30 foot high pile of landfill that is in place in violation of the city’s site alteration bylaw.
The property owner advises that the Ministry of the Environment will be on her property later today to test for contamination in the pond.”
These publications are false and misleading in at least the following respects:
1. The soil was tested. Results to date in 2009 were reviewed by Region of Halton which reported to the City of Burlington: “The results for all criteria meet the Regional and Provincial standards (potable) as required in Table 2 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.”
2. The Airport is not contaminating the groundwater. Multiple tests by Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”) and Halton Region have shown no impact on groundwater.
3. When the City of Burlington reported the results of the Halton Region testing of wells on properties bordering the Airport in its Burlington Executive Airport Update #6- September 9, 2013: “On August 23, city staff were sent an email by the Region of Halton regarding testing of wells on several properties adjacent to the airport. The email indicated that the MOE and the Halton Region Health Department were working together to sample and analyze the drinking water wells of homes located immediately adjacent to where the fill was placed on the airport site. Well water samples were collected by MOE staff from two properties. The samples were being analyzed for inorganics, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Results of this testing were provided to the Health Department. The results were then compared to the health-based Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards and the Ministry of Environment Table 2 Brownfields standards. The Region has indicated that no exceedances were reported. These results have been shared with the property owners. Permission was given by these property owners for the Health Department to share the results with city staff.”
4. These results were also discussed at the Burlington Development and Infrastructure Committee meeting on September 9, 2013 where it was reported: “On to Environmental matters on page 3 -the well testing. You can see the correspondence that’s come in from your CEO over at the Region of Halton. That work is being done in co operation with the Health Unit. That’s flowing through the good Doctor [Nosal], so the results will , continue; they have been shared with the property owners and the Health Department and we’ll get that information as it comes forward. Nothing negative at this stage and that is not unusual to see that there isn’t anything negative that would migrate from the site and be into any wells anyway, at this stage.”
The publication was actuated by malice justifying an award of punitive or exemplary damages, in that you caused these words to be published knowing them to be untrue, or being reckless as to their truth. In particular the Airport will rely on:
1. The publication of an article dated April 9 2014 reporting on the filing of nomination papers by Vanessa Warren. The article, when fairly read, is an endorsement of her candidacy. The article repeats earlier defamatory claims that the Airport was importing “toxic landfill” and was running an “unlicensed landfill operation”. Both these allegations are untrue. The July 16, 2013 article in which these claims were made is still available on the Burlington Gazette website, and the Airport claims with respect to these statements as well having been made less than one year prior to April 11, 2014.
2. The Burlington Gazette reported on the testing of neighbouring wells on August 5, 2013. This report is also inaccurate in claiming that the Terrapex study established that any contaminants were migrating from the Airport property. Terrapex did not comment on off-site impacts as that was not part of the scope of work assigned to it by the City of Burlington. In addition, it bad not done any testing that would have been required to comment on off-site impacts. The August 5, 2013 article in which the false claim that the Terrapex report was evidence of off-site impacts by the Airport is still available on the Burlington Gazette website, and the Airport claims with respect to that statement as well, having been made less than one year prior to April 11, 2014.Nevertheless , as a result of the reports by the City as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, you knew or ought to have known that the tests of neighbouring wells showed no adverse impact due to the Airport and that the City of Burlington had advised the community that there wasn’t anything negative that would migrate from the site and be in any wells anyway. The failure to report these results was selective reporting intended to maintain the fiction that the Airport land was adversely impacting the neighbours, when the tests specifically performed to determine whether that was so were to the contrary.
Our instructions are to pursue legal proceedings unless the defamatory statements in the articles of April 11, 2014, July 16, 2013 and August 5, 2013 are retracted and a full and fair apology satisfactory to our clients is published in the same fashion and in an equally prominent way as the statements specified in this notice.
The notice was signed by Peter West, solicitor for Air Park Inc., carrying on business at the Burlington Executive Air Park. The Air Park is currently in litigation with the city. The cases were first heard at the Ontario Superior Court in Milton where Justice Murray found for the city. The Air Park immediately filed an appeal that is to be heard in Toronto June 11, 2014
Background links:
July 15, 2013 article July 16, 2013 article August 5, 2013 article April 11, 2014 article Libel chill Justice Murray decision
The lawyer is just doing his job.
The threat of legal action will actually help in finding a resolution, that will probably result in having Rossi remove all the fill, and maybe even buy some live fish for the pond, and pay any other damages suffered by adjoining property owners.
The loss of life on a scale such as has been reported is not a coincidence. Silt killed the fish from the fill placed upon the lands situated wholly in the Greenbelt Plan Area that guides site alteration works for prevention of such destruction of sensitive agricultural and natural areas. The Greenbelt Plan is a very serious piece of governing land use legislation.
I just cannot get over the loss of so many lives because of a big pile of dirt placed down with disregard for all living beings, that are now all dead.
Oh by the way, there may also have been a requirement to conduct a first nations consultation, and/or, requirement for an archeological assessment prior to the fill activities?
Let’s just forget about all the fine details, permit requirements, site alteration approvals, jurisdictional authority, and all that other gov’t regulation nonsense and protection of private property rights, and preservation of agricultural lands; because we should all have faith that one of our great councilors has always been on the ball and probably has all the answers that will demonstrate how Rossi did nothing wrong and now has been so damaged by all the unjust publicity.
I vaguely recall Rossi indicating that Lancaster provided comfort in the continuance of the fill activity. Maybe she should be called witness to support the upcoming hearing and get this story over with once and for all, and everybody goes home.
No harm no foul, except for the mass killing still under investigation.
The Airpark folks are now attempting to shut down the press. Interesting as it demonstrates just how desperate that they are becoming.
Will we, in future have to rely on the publication from the Airpark for the so called “correct” news? LOL.
Can someone explain to me the legal ramifications between an “Airport” and Airpark” >
Are they the same, entitled to the same legal responsibilities and perks?
I wonder because the owner declared he wanted his privacy protected?????
How is this exactly no matter whether an air park or air port or neighbour with unexplained landfill being dumped into the area with so many water sources, wells, ponds, etc at risk for people and livestock? Explain to we laypersons/citizens just how or why this should work the owners’ way accepting no responsibility to his neighbours.
Thanks on behalf of all of us.
This is simply a private property with a landing strip and some outbuildings used for parking and storage of aircraft.
Rossi is trying to lead everyone to believe that he has the same status as an airport such as Pearson or Toronto Island.
Nothing is working for Rossi; and it is highly likely that he will be found to liable for all the damage he has caused. The problem is the city may also be on the hook for letting this happen.
These airpark guys are trying to go after anyone – searching for the weakest link – because they know the city is winning. Do something with your time “lawyer”. Your claims are ridiculous. What a sad case. Rossi is a disaster too.
I just reviewed the contamination report on the City’s website (found under the link for the Airport). Terrapex, the professional, INDEPENDENT, environmental assessment firm which the City hired, indicated that not only was a grossly insufficient number of soil samples submitted by Rossi, but that 60% of what WAS submitted was highly contaminated.
So how on earth can Rossi’s lawyer claim that the soil testing was satisfactory?
As the Appeal hearing gets closer (less than 60 days now), one might easily sense by his actions that Rossi is now scared and desperate.
First his distorted ‘tale’ that he got published last week in the Hamilton Spectator. Then you get served with legal papers, distorting your articles’ contents and contexts.
When bullies get backed into a corner, they lash out at everyone. Which begs the question, who is Rossi going after next?
Well would that be “selective reporting” on behalf of the airpark solicitor? Apparently what you don’t report can be libelous according to my understanding of this Libel Notice to the Gazette.
I’d me more interested to know if there has been a change in water quality over time, rather than “no exceedences were reported”. Further, WILL there be a change in water quality over time?
The solicitors have quoted: “Nothing negative at this stage and that is not unusual to see that there isn’t anything negative that would migrate from the site and be into any wells anyway, at this stage”.
In the spirit of seeking truth and justice, I would like to simplify the current threat of libel against the gazette.
The Gazette was careful in stating facts and in this particular case merely raised questions about unusual occurrences of multiple deaths in close proximity to the fill site.
Multiple deaths can occur from silty water void of oxygen and change in what may have been a stabilized marine environment which had supported life previous to the timing of the unusual fill activity. The soil testing may have concluded satisfactory results, but, not necessarily within the context of having an influence on potential death on a mass scale, resulting from unanticipated impacts of silt and change in natural and life supporting environmental conditions.
I also have instructions, but, they are to ignore the arrogant stance towards an accusation of malice, as the Gazette article was inviting answers to some very long outstanding questions and concerns raised by concerned members of the general public.
The public has the right to know for the benefit of society as a whole. In that context I believe the spirit of the article was published to assist in the general betterment of society and not even at the expense of a specific party who started the whole thing in the first place.
Clean soils are likely not the culprit, but, silt caused by soil dumping appears to be a likely suspect in the mass killings.
What we may actually have here, is a potential crime scene warranting further investigation.
Has anybody spoken with witnesses? and have any of the dead victims’ families been notified?
There may not be enough time to respond to the threat of legal proceedings (note the nature of legal proceedings was not defined), since the appeal is scheduled for June 11. Wait for that hearing and the apology will be coming from the guy who has been dumping the fill, which may have had an impact on the safety and well being of members of our wildlife community, who may have given up their lives caught up in the struggle for seeking truth and justice.
The Gazette is here to help, and so is Mr. Wonderful.
Mr. Wonderful you have said before you were here to help. I wrote before re affordable housing that if that is the case then why do we not meet with at first a few persons of “like mind” to discuss how best to move forward in a timely manner. Still waiting for your response.