Air Park sues Gazette and two citizens for libel and defamation; wants $100,000 and an injunction.

News 100 greenBy Pepper Parr

May 26, 2014

Burlington, ON.

Well we kind of expected it would come to this.

The Burlington Gazette, it’s publisher Pepper Parr, Monte Dennis and Vanesa Warren were served with Notices of Libel during the month of April, three for the Gazette, two each for Dennis and Warren.

Airpark aerial used by the city

These are the lands that are described as the Burlington Air Park upon which tonnes of uni-nspected landfill were dumped without a city site alteration approval.

None of the parties served libel notices chose to apologize and the Gazette decided the articles were not libelous and let them remain on the web site.

The air park lawyers then sued the three people, Parr, Dennis and Warren asking for $100,000 in exemplary damages. The air park set out 23 points in their Statement of Claim.  They are set out below along with links to the articles they took offence to

1: The plaintiff claims:

(a)              compensatory and exemplary damages for libel of $100,000

(b)             prejudgment interest on the compensatory damages and post judgment interest on all the damages;

(c)             an injunction  restraining the defendants and each of them from alleging that the plaintiff has created an environmental hazard by bringing fill onto its lands that has or may adversely impact the groundwater or surrounding watercourses ;

(d)             costs together with HST.

The plaintiff

  1. The writ describes the plaintiff; Burlington Air Park Inc.,who they are and where they are located. This is the Burlington Air Park Inc.

The defendants

  1. The defendants are described in sections 3,4,5,6 and 7. This is the Gazette, Parr, Dennis and Warren.

The defamatory publications.

Editor’s note: Links to each of the articles are set out at the end of this piece.

 Describes an article: “A “fishy” story – people are being hurt and a part of rural Burlington may have a badly contaminated water supply.

  1. Our Burlington posted the following concerning the plaintiff on its website https://www .burlingtongazette .ca/:

 On or about April 16, 2014 Our Burlington posted the following concerning the plaintiff on its website https://www :

“North Burlington residents petition the MOE – but they don’t make their demands public.

There were four reader comments attached to that piece; they read as follows

 Bob says on April 16, 2014 at 11:37 am

(the Bob comment is not set out in the writ)


Vanessa Warren says  on April 17, 2014 at 11:39 am


Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Air PArk and beleived to be the sole shareholder of the private company, met with north Burlington residents.  He took all the comments made "under advisement"..

Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Air Park and believed to be the sole shareholder of the private company was sued by the city for failing to comply with a city bylaw.  The Court found in favour of the city.  The Air Park has appealed.  The appeal is to be heard June 11, in Toronto at Osgoode Hall.

Mr. Rossi.

The Kovachik family opened the airpark in 1962, and for 44 years operated in harmony with its neighbours and its rural surroundings . You are not allowed to capitalize on that history. The history that you ‘re accountable for is amounting to an environmental disaster in our pristine protected countryside, and you may not manipulate that  truth unchallenged  anymore.

 This is not an airpark improvement issue. This is a landfill issue, a water protection issue, a storm water management issue, a truck entrance and road use issue, and a property destruction and flooding issue.

 Are we to celebrate that you ‘ve spent money to improve your for-profi t business? Who doesn ‘t do that? You say you ‘ve spent 4 million in improvements , but what about the income you ‘ve made from charging for untold hundreds of thousands of tons of unregulated  fill? What about the protected watercourse you ‘ve destroyed? What about the regionally significant woodlot you gutted? The cost to the environment, the community and the City for your ‘improvements ‘ has been too high to bear.

 Ask your immediate neighbours – none of whom have “recently purchased their homes” – bow things have improved for them? Flooded fields are unfarmable. Backyards and septic beds are underwater from silted run off. Sight lines and property enjoyment are destroyed. Anxiety about well water safety is high, and you will not permit the MOE to release on-site testing data. Writing that you ‘ve “always respected your neighbours .. .” is more than untrue; it’s cruel.

 There are no unsubstantiated claims. Terrapex Environmental found unacceptably high levels of contaminants like hydrocarbons and heavy metals in the paltry 52 soil reports you were able to provide. Off-site water testing may be fine to date (again, where’s the data?), but how long might it talce for those contaminants to leach into wells?

 The City of Burlington legally won the right to impose its Site Alteration Bylaw on airpark property , and yet you still will not comply. The community would truly love to know that your property is NOT full of contaminated fill why dont you give us the verified, third-party data to prove it?

 We are all so weary of your attempts to manipulate . Standing up to you and stopping the trucks was never political , it was ethical, and you have no ethical credibility left.

Vanessa Warren Aside:

Hamilton Spectator, please dont publish this man ‘s letters anymore. The community around this airpark has been under siege since 2007 and the negative psychological  impact of unbalanced coverage like this is enormous.

 Ford Motor Company, Mercedes-Benz Canada, Evertz Microsystems, L- 3 Communications , Big Brothers and Big Sisters and PwC Epic Tour Halton – are you comfortable being cited in this letter?


 Rob Narejko says on April 16, 2014 at 1:44 pm

 It is hard to believe that our legal system allows an individual or a corporation ‘s right to privacy to be intact, when the actions of that individual I corporation are detrimental to the quality of life of others.

 The tests were paid for by our government and the government is empowered on our behalf to look after the interests of the citizens. The materials from the land fill I dump are more than likely leaching onto other people’s property. The information from the MOE study should be made public without having to resort to Freedom of Information requests .

 I give the City credit for jumping on this issue and for their approach. The rights of one person or corporation should not trump the communitys rights to know what is there. Without knowing what is there, how will it ever be re-mediated? And what happens to the environmental concerns and the adjacent owner’s property value?

PS Check out the  ‘scenic’ asphalt piles dumped in the field on the west side of Walker ‘s Line, just north of the 407 overpass. It will be interesting to see why this road waste material was allowed to be dumped in an agricultural field. Or was it?

 Editor’s note: We understand that Mr. Narejko has not been sued.


 Roger says on April  16, 2014 at 5:10 pm

 Bob could not have gotten  it any better . The article in the Spec as self serving and deficent on fact.



The owner of a property on Appleby Line stands at her property line.  Plans submitted to the Region at one point had a large helicopter pad sitting atop the 30 foot pile of earth.  The owner of the property on which the heliport was to be built claimed he did not have to get site plan approval from Burlington.  A Judge disagreed with him.  That decision is being appealed.

The owner of a property on Appleby Line stands at her property line. Plans submitted to the Region at one point had a large helicopter pad sitting atop the 30 foot pile of earth. The owner of the property on which the heliport was to be built claimed he did not have to get site plan approval from Burlington. A Judge disagreed with him. That decision is being appealed.

 Stephanie Cooper-Smyth says April 16, 2014 at 3:32 pm

Vincenzo Rossi – we know you follow this website, you ‘ve even posted on it. So if you can see this now, which may be difficult considering how exponentially your nose grew while crafting that exceptional ‘tale ‘ for the Spectator, get this:

 You have  accepted hundreds of thousands of truckloads of (contaminated) fill since 2008, and all you’ve got to show for ‘improvements ‘ is: you paved over a grass runway, you ‘ve done some alterations to your main runway, you ‘ve built a few hangers.

 Really?? Hundreds of thousands of truckloads of fill every year since 2008 . ..for just that?? How much longer are you going to try and dupe the good folks of Burlington?

 And one more thing, Vincenzo Rossi: According to the information submitted to Hizzoner at the hearing last year, the income from the hundreds of thousands of trucks to which you sold dumping rights, (last figure released was $85.00 per truck) for ‘improving ‘ your airpark”, doesn ‘t even appear on the Airpark ‘s financial statements in 2011, 2012 or 2013. (Hello CRA?)

 As for the legacy of the airpark, (“it’s long and accomplished history in Halton”), which you are attempting to claim: How dare you hijack the reputation and relations that the Kovachik ‘s built!

 Since you bought the airpark, Vincenzo Rossi, all you have done is destroyed the environment , misled and deceived the authorities, ruined the lives and threatened the safety of the neighboring community. That is YOUR legacy.

 Why dont you just go to where ever you sent all the money you earned from accepting all that toxic landfill you are neither believed nor wanted here by citizens of Burlington.

Editor’s note: We do not know if  Stephanie Cooper-Smyth has been sued


 Joan says on April 17, 2014 at 2:32 pm

 Mabe someone should seek advice from Erin Brockovic.

  1. On or about April 24, 2014 Our Burlington posted the following concerning the plaintiff on its website.

Letter to the Spectator editor altered on Air Park web site: still a lousy neighbour

 The publication by Our Burlington and Parr on April 11, 2014 set out in paragraph 7 above was actuated by actual malice, in that it was published knowing it to be untrue, or reckless as to its truth. In an article dated April 9, 2014 Our Burlington and Parr republished allegations from an earlier posting dated July 16, 2013  that was, at April 16, 2014, still available on the http ://www.burlingtongazette .ca/ website, that the fill on the plaintiff s land was “toxic” and that the plaintiff had been running “an unlicensed landfill operation.” It also republished allegations from an August 5, 2013 posting     that     was,     at      April      16,      2014,      still      available      on      the  http ://www website, falsely claiming that a Terrapex report established that contaminants were migrating from the plaintiff s property.   The August 5, 2013 posting reported that testing was being done of neighbouring wells. When this posting was emphasized on April 9 2014, the City of Burlington had reported on those results in its Burlington Executive Airport Update #6 dated September 9, 2013  as follows: “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.”

 Further, the publications referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 were actuated by malice as Our Burlington and Parr published a letter on May 19, 2014 that made the following allegations concerning the plaintiff s president: “… Are his victims, or anyone who ‘s objected to his fill business soon to be ‘buried ‘ as well?

I think the residents of Rural Burlington better start using the buddy system whenever they leave their homes. And I suggest a telephonic head count every morning, and include Pepper  Parr’s…”

 On May 2, 2014 Dennis published the following letter to the editor m the Hamilton Spectator:

“Tainted Airpark fill a threat to neighbours’ wells.

Improvements to airpark up in the air (Opinion, April 16)

The recent article by Burlington Airpark owner Vince Rossi leaves out important, relevant facts.

The Burlington Airpark’s own soil analysis data, provided to the City of Burlington’s soil specialists, showed that much of the imported fill is chemically contaminated , and represented only a portion of the imported fill. The tens of thousands of loads of fill dumped onto the airpark were spread throughout the site and will require a grid-work of soil sampling to fmd and quantify.

Depending on imported  soil types, conditions, groundwater mobility, precipitation amounts and other factors, the negative impacts could take years to be detected in area wells .

Although the dumping has stopped, the concern is that toxic materials will sooner or later leach into neighbours’ wells. The immediate neighbours have experienced excessive water run-off due to the altered drainage. Some of the land is too wet for farming. Some of the wells are silted, making the water undrinkable.

While waiting for a court settlement and the Ministry of Environment research results, residents are suffering from the stress of an uncertain future. The clean up and rectification of this mess could take years and cost millions. Why won’t the Burlington Airpark share the soil and groundwater test results? The airpark claims the data is private and confidential.

The Ministry  of Transport directive asks the airparks to comply with provincial and local regulations that do not affect aviation . Federal legislation regulates the safe movement of aircraft. The airpark lost the court case on the validity of the Burlington fill bylaw and plans to appeal in June. In the case of Scugog  Airpark, a judgment decreed that fill operations must comply with Scugog’s municipal fill bylaws, which should be the case with all municipalities. This would result in lawfu l, responsible and environmentally sustainable development.

Monte Dennis on behalf of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition”

 Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition is not a corporation, nor is it a registered charity.  If  it exists, it is an unincorporated association of individuals.

Editors note:  The cheek, the unmitigated cheek.  Both Mr. Rossi and his legal counsel are fully aware of the existence of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition who delegated very effectively at both the city of Burlington and the Region of Halton.

The republications

 On April 22, 2014 Our Burlington published the libel notice i t received with respect to the publication described in paragraph 7 above on its website and Twitter account . Such publication of the libel notice amounts to a republication of the original libel. On or about April 22,  2014  Warren  posted  the  following  on  her  website https://vanessawarren .ca/  and  Twitter  account   https ://   “Vince  Rossi  threatens  to  sue  @OurBur  for  libel.  Wonder  who  is  next?  #BurlON

#BurlingtonAirpark https:// www .burlingtongazette .ca/air-park-lawyer -threaten-to-sue­ for-libel-gazette-considering-its-options .. .” The links in the postings amount to republication by Warren of the libel described in paragraph 7 above. Having read the article on Our Burlington ‘s website, Warren knew that the plaintiff was asserting that the original publication was defamatory, yet she maliciously chose to draw it to the attention of  persons who might not otherwise have been aware of that publication.

 Warren republished the comment referred to in paragraph 8 above on her website http :// on or before April 23, 2014. The precise date of posting is not known to the plaintiff , but is known to Warren.

 Further, on May 2, 2014 Warren made the following post on her Twitter account: vanessaawarren  as  follows:  “Vanessa  Warren  @VanessaAWarren  •May  2  Thank  you Hamilton   Spectator   for   balancing   the   dialogue   and   bravo   RBGC   –   well   said! /4494486-tainted-airpark-fill-a-threat-to-neighbours­ wells/”  The link in that tweet took a reader to the letter set out in paragraph  12 above.

 The links referred to in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 did not simply make reference to the existence and location of content, they also repeated the sting of the libel in the articles to which reference was made, and encouraged viewers of her posts to visit those sites.

The articles and comments are defamatory and were calculated to injure the plaintiff

 In addition to the plain meaning of the words so published , by these words the defendants meant,  and were understood to mean that the plaintiff was putting the community as well as groundwater, streams and ponds in  the community at risk, or causing members of the community actual harm by having brought onto its land toxic fill that was adversely affecting the groundwater , streams and ponds and the fish living in such streams and ponds . They further meant, and were understood to mean that the plaintiff was preventing  the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”) from publishing test data in the possession of the MOE. They further meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff has caused flooding and silted runoff onto neighbouring lands. The defendants meant and were understood to mean that Terrapex had actually performed testing in connection with the plaintiff s lands. They further meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had posted on its website an altered version of a document that it had already published in the Hamilton Spectator.

 The words printed in the foregoing articles and comments were and are defamatory.  The addition of photographs and commentary in the publication referred to in paragraph 9 were not part of the letter published by the plaintiff in the Hamilton Spectator, and would have misled readers into believing that they had been. The allegations that the plaintiff brought contaminated fill onto its property and is putting groundwater, neighbouring streams and ponds and the environment generally at risk are calculated to injure the plaintiff in an effort to delay or prevent the further development of the Burlington Executive Airport. By reason of the publication of these defamatory statements, the plaintiff has suffered damages.

 The words published by Warren were also false and misleading in a material respect and were knowingly or recklessly made by her for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly her business interest in Capstone Farms, contrary to s. 52(1) of the Competition Act, RSC 1985, c. C-34, as amended .

 The republications described in paragraphs 14 through 17 above were done with callous disregard of the plaintiff s rights and are deserving of an award of exemplary damages which are necessary to dissuade the defendants from engaging is such conduct in future. The protection of a party’s reputation arising from the publication of false and injurious statements must be effective. The most effective means of protection will be supplied by the knowledge that fines in the form of exemplary damages may be awarded in cases where the defendants ‘ conduct is truly outrageous, as it has been in the present case.


So there you have it.  This is what will get presented to a Judge who will decide if we libeled or defamed Mr. Rossi.

We do know this – the city of Burlington and the  and the Burlington Air Park sued each other and Justice Murray found in favour of the city.  He also awarded the city costs of $40,000.

In asking for exemplary damages of $100,00 from the Gazette, Parr, Dennis and Warren, Mr Rossi appears to be attempting to recover from the defendants the amount he had to pay the city.

 We have yet to decide what we will ask the Judge who hears this case what the defendants will seek for the vexatious, egregious and whatever big word lawyers use to say what they mean, in the way of damages from Mr. Rossi.

 What we would like most is for Mr. Rossi to follow and adhere to the rule of law that he is now using to hammer two citizens who were exercising their right to speak their minds.  As for the Gazette, we can take care of ourselves. 

Links to past editorial content:

The “fishy” story.

North Burlington residents petition MOE

Letter to the editor.


Return to the Front page
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 comments to Air Park sues Gazette and two citizens for libel and defamation; wants $100,000 and an injunction.

  • Andrew Forber

    It’s amazing how much of an alternate-reality bubble you folks are in. The very night before you announced you were resuming publication “by popular acclaim” I was in a Burlington restaurant where about a dozen people – none of them employed by the airport – toasted the demise of The Burlington Gazette. Sometimes “not one negative response” means “my detractors all had too much class to gloat.”
    First off let’s be clear: the blog that calls itself the Burlington Gazette has been “reporting” things that are absolutely not true about the airport for many months. I’m not basing that on what the airport owner and his people have said, it’s right there in the documentation posted on the City’s web site.
    For example, Mr. Parr continues to report /imply/suggest that the water is contaminated, and that there’s some conspiracy to hide water testing results, when in fact the results were released to the public the middle of last year. And they were all clean. The freedom of information request he keeps harping on concerns details of the consultations that were done in order to design the sampling well network on the airport property, not the results of the testing of anyone’s water. He also keeps implying, suggesting, or trying to lead people to believe that the “local resident” who did not agree to having some information released is Mr. Rossi. News flash, folks: Mr. Rossi is not a local resident.
    Even so, The Gazette keeps raising this same red herring and claiming that the testing results are being suppressed somehow, including elaborate smears, innuendo, leading questions, and conspiracy theories. The Gazette took down one article when I posted a response that tore it to shreds for being irrational and over-the-top. It’s a shame the blog didn’t pay attention then and apologize to readers, as I suggested. I also pointed out that stating things as leading questions and innuendo does not protect anyone under Canadian defamation law: only the truth can do that, and the truth is not on your side. I’m only surprised that the airport management waited so long.
    I have to assume that if you had actual evidence of contaminated groundwater you would have produced it by now, so apparently there isn’t any. Read all of the documentation, and understand it, and you’ll see that it’s so. All of the thorough testing done so far has found no exceedences. (Funny thing, you know, a friend of mine had all of the fish die in his garden pool this spring, and he lives just outside Barrie. Wow, that airport must be really, really contaminated, eh? Pfft.)
    Second, yes I have read the Terrapex report. I’ve read lots of the reports, including the Pinchon Environmental water testing results, the published correspondence between the city and the MOE, the recent court decisions, about five Supreme Court of Canada decisions which assert exclusive Federal jurisdiction over airports; but I’ve read the Terrapex one which you all have chosen to believe unconditionally, in particular. And then I asked a friend to read it, someone who is an independent, professional, licensed civil engineer, who deals with soil testing results and reports on a regular basis and has done so over many years. His reaction was the same as mine: that perhaps the City decided what the conclusion would be, and then they paid someone to make a report that said that. It contains so much invective and accusation that it’s clearly not a technical report, but a position paper, written not by someone acting as an impartial analyst, but as a participant and advocate for one side. I can’t independently verify that it has arithmetic and logic errors that completely invalidate it, as the airport claims, but I have no trouble believing that it may be true. What I know is that it isn’t written like any objective technical analysis I have ever read, and I read technical papers all the time.
    Also, even the Terrapex report said that a large majority of the soil samples that failed the test did so because of having high soil conductivity and no other reason. Do you know what that means? It probably means that some of them had road salt, just like the stuff you have been spreading on your driveway. (As I understand it, the conductivity and the sodium uptake ratios suggest that leachate may not be suitable to be diverted to use undiluted as irrigation water on some crops.) So I guess that makes you all guilty of contaminating soil.
    There is only one impartial, unbiased organization that can determine whether the soil samples meet the required standards, and that’s the same one that wrote and enforces the regulations, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. And it has said, publicly, for all of you to read, that the soil meets the required standards. It seems you have chosen to believe only the things you want to, as opposed to facts. That’s called “confirmation bias”.
    The sources of the soil are also documented in the original reports. They all originated from nearby. Some of the soil came from the grounds of the high school my sons attended. I don’t know where you think the soil came from that “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!”, but surely we must have heard of that place by now because, if it’s as contaminated as you claim, it must be truly awful.
    If you had read the edited correspondence the City itself published between the City (and Terrapex) and MOE, where they dispute the MOE’s conclusions, it goes a lot like this:
    Neighbour: “Officer, that man is speeding! Throw the book at him!”
    Officer: “He’s going forty-eight kilometres per hour.”
    Neighbour: “Exactly! And the speed limit is thirty!”
    Officer: “No, it’s fifty.”
    Neighbour: “Well it’s thirty, the next street over.”
    Officer: “But you’re aware that it’s fifty on this street, right? The sign is right over there.”
    Neighbour: “Well, um, anyway, it’s always been best practice to guarantee that people go less than fifty by making sure they go under thirty. I demand that you ticket him!”
    Officer: “Um, yeah, we’ll get right back to you on that.”

    It’s like something right out of Alice in Wonderland.
    By all means, hold the airport to account. But do it honestly, and where supported by facts and logic rather than by innuendo and fiction of those NIMBY neighbours who have no valid complaints. Some complaints against the airport may be valid. However, it’s clearly the case that many are not. If there actually is soil and water contamination then I want to know about it: I have been environmentally concerned my whole life, I’m not just someone who uses it as a tactic to resolve a dispute with my inconvenient neighbour. That’s one reason I’ve read everything. But you know what? There’s no compelling evidence for what you’re all claiming. If it comes I’ll reconsider.
    Finally, though I have a science degree I have spent twenty-seven of the last thirty-two years dealing with two groups of customers: journalists, and civil litigation attorneys. I work with several ex-journalists every day, and I provide technology to most of the largest newspapers in North America. I know a bit about journalism, having been steeped in its traditions and having to be aware of its strictures, but I would not claim to be a journalist no matter how many blog posts I write: I have too much respect for the profession, which requires education, mentoring, supervision, editing, and long years of professional experience to do. You can’t just start a blog and call yourself a journalist for the same reason you can’t just change the occasional bandage and call yourself a nurse.
    It’s sad to see this happening. It’s also sad to see people propping Mr. Parr up and urging him on, because if he loses the defamation suit all of those letters of support may be evidence for a jury that the disinformation campaign has been effective, caused real damage, and deserves a large penalty. Nobody is winning here. I don’t believe that Pepper Parr is publishing these things out of self-interest, the way some of his NIMBY-ist sources are. I even admire his motives, if they’re genuine. It’s just that his position on the environmental status of the property seems to be mostly based on make-believe, and rumours lies and innuendo of people with personal, selfish, pecuniary interests in damaging the airport.
    I can’t help thinking of Don Quixote, and a certain blameless windmill.
    Andrew Forber
    Footnote: I have no inside knowledge of the operations of the airport management team. I did not know about the libel notices until after the Gazette ceased publication, although anyone with any sense could see them coming. I do no work for the airport, and they certainly haven’t asked me to comment. I am just a member of a community of people who use and value the airport, and want to see it presented fairly and factually to the public.

  • Tony Pullin

    I can’t imagine this lawsuit by the airpark will do much good for their public image. Photogenics only goes so far.
    Editor’s note: The last thing they care about is what the public thinks. They are between a rock and a very hard place and they need to shut down any comment that is anything less than pure corporate fluff.

    • Tony Pullin

      Response to Editor:
      Now that we’re familiar with the concept of “libel chill”, it may be a good time to revisit good ‘ole freedom of speech. The laymen’s definition of course, because we can’t all be lawyers. Freedom of speech is one of the primary foundations of our civilized existence. We should endeavour to have the courage to use it without threat of impunity . Thanks for providing the opportunity for others to post their thoughts and comments here. I presume that you allow airport counsel, officers, owners, etc. equal opportunity.

      • Pat

        Actually, it would appear that suddenly, after more than a year of your factual reports and the undeniable evidence of his destructive activities within our City, Mr. Rossi DOES care about what the public thinks…which, based on his documented behavior and character, can only mean that it must be finally affecting his personal income.


  • Pat McGlenister

    Mr. Parr,

    I have spent more than a year now reading your in-depth coverage on fill operation at the Burlington Airpark.

    I have spent about the same amount of time reading about this horrible situation from the City’s staff reports as they’ve been made available, and listening to Mayor Goldring, the majority of Burlington’s councillors, as well as the the majority of Halton’s Regional elected council members.

    From every angle possible, it has been made quite clear to me that Mr. Rossi is refusing to be a good corporate citizen and respectful neighbor. I am pretty sure I’m not the only bystander who’s come to this obvious conclusion.

    In my opinion, this libel suit is the final straw. In my opinion, this Mr. Rossi has disrespected the citizens and authorities long enough. If I have the timelines right, about 5 years too long, actually.

    There have been a select few who have already been seriously damaged directly – countless more harmed indirectly – and who knows the number of people who stand to suffer from Mr. Rossi’s fill operation in the future.

    Is there something that we, your appreciative readers, can do to help you, Ms. Warren and Mr. Dennis. Will you let us know when the Court date is and allow us to be present to show our support? We ought to pack that Courtroom.

    Have you thought about setting up a donation account so that we may assist with your legal fees? What about a public rally or demonstration to allow us to speak out against this travesty of justice? Would Mr. Rossi sue us all?

    You, Ms. Warren and Mr. Dennis – as well as the City council and staff ought to know that as we sit behind our computers screens, as we read your insightful and comprehensive reporting and your intelligent views, and as we learn of the injustices being done to our community and its people, we are fuming.

    Well, at least I am. I do hope you receive the same justified anger and supportive outreach from thousands of your other readers about this most recent and bullying action by Mr. Rossi’s shortly.

    • Bob

      Pat – Great ideal about setting up a fund of some sort to help these people out. If someone can set something up, I will certainly contribute as I am sure, many others would as well. When this is case is won by the Gazette and other litigants, the money could be donated to a charity or cause of their choice.

      • Joan

        Good idea to donate the money to a charity but how about keeping it on reserve in case of some other attempt at “libel chill”?

        • Joan

          Newspapers should not have to worry about being sued for reporting what is happening.
          Eg. when someone calls and says I see sometning amiss on my property and…..and the paper investigates and then reports what they have seen and heard.
          As well, persons who write in to the newspaper should not fear to speak up with how they feel about it or what they think could be done without being sued.
          I do not know many persons who could pay $l00K. This remminds me of intimidation such as that when the Toronto Mayor would tell his “people” to take pictures, of the people in the audience who dissented.
          Bullying tactics as I see it.

  • Stephen Warner

    I would say something but I won’t due to the fear I will be sued.