 By Staff
June 24, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Great day in Burlington history.
  After learning that the citizens of the city have paid for their pier twice, the good folks who remit their taxes on time, can take some pleasure in knowing that the Freeman Station is now sitting on its foundation and within day the construction crews will begin their work on the innards of the building.
 During the process of lowering the station onto the foundation, a 2014 Loonie was placed on top of the sill plate prior to the station being lowered.
James Smith, a candidate for the ward 5 council seat said “for some reason 2014 Loonies are hard to come by, but we did get one, and the people who move the station next can reclaim it.”
 That can happen when the railway station gets moved to its rightful location on the Beachway, where the railway track bed is now used as a walking path.
By Staff
June 24, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The shovels will not be going into the ground this year but the people who are building the Delta Hotel portion of the Bridgewater project have announced that the digging will start in 2015
 Delta Hotel releases rendering of what they expect their eight storey hotel to look like. Shovels are expected to go into the ground in 2015 That won’t be in time for the Pan Am Games which was the expectation when the three structure project that is to be built on the Lakeshore Road east of Brant Street and next to the Waterfront Hotel when the project finally came back to life after years of inaction.
 Known as the Bridgewater project, it has been a gleam in the city’s eye since 1985 – it finally got some traction. Hotel portion expect to begin construction in 2015. The hotel expects to open their doors to the public in 2018 with 152 rooms and 8000 square feet of meeting and conference space.
Hotel management is currently in discussion with several high end concept restaurants for the Burlington location.
MADY Developments is in process of constructing the sales and presentation centre that will be used to market the condominiums in the 22 storey structure on the east side of the property and the seven story condominium that will sit to the south of the Delta Hotel on the west side.
 By Pepper Parr
June 24, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The full story on the Brant Street Pier settlement is going to come out in bits and pieces. Yesterday the city of Burlington got its story out. The announced that they were awarded $1.5 million from a pool of funds and got to keep an additional $500,000 they had on hand as a hold back from a company; they weren’t prepared to say who the hold-back belonged to.
 It was a unique design, it was going to put the city on the map – all it did was keep everyone in a room with their lawyers. With those numbers on the table, the city declared victory and said it was time to move on. “The city has $500 million in capital projects going on and from time to time some of those projects don’t work out” said the Mayor. The pier was one of those projects that didn’t work out and the public is apparently going to be expected to suck it up and accept the fact that the pier has cost twice the original price.
Later this week Harm Schilthuis and Sons Ltd., (HSS) will tell its side of the story in a press release.
The Gazette can tell you now that HSS will be given $1.75 million cash from the pool of funds that was created plus an additional $650,000 which will be funds other parties have to pay them.
In an early version of this article there was a typo showing the amount as $65,000. The correct amount is $650,000
This settlement is not yet final; two of the nine parties had to get approval from their boards. While these two parties were not named – it seems pretty clear that they are the ones who have had to contribute the bulks of the funds to the pool.
That pool will pay out $1.5 million to the city of Burlington and $1.75 million to HSS which brings the pool total to $3.25 million – so far
Henry Schilthuis, president of HSS said he is “satisfied with the settlements. The city of Burlington sued HSS and AECOM for a total of $10 million each and sued Zurich Insurance for $3.5 million – they didn’t get any of that money – all they got was a sum to cover their legal fees.” Schilthuis never felt the city had a case – but it took more than four years of grinding legal work to make that point.
There was a point at which Schilthuis wasn’t sure he could keep the company alive. Tens of thousands was owed to his sub contractors but they stood by the firm and agreed to wait. The wait has proven worthwhile
It is a real stretch for the city to claim that it “won”. One has to wonder just how gullible this council thinks its voters are.
HSS was given more than enough to cover their legal fees and the additional engineering costs that were incurred when they tried to come up with a solution to the engineering problems.
The amounts they will get allows them to pay the sub-contractors who stood by the company while the city was hammering HSS financially.
During the city’s media briefing on Monday, much was made of the “shuttle diplomacy” that former city manager Jeff Fielding used to try and broker a deal.
Before the examinations for discovery took place Fielding got approval from the Mayor to broker a deal said Schilthuis and “we arrived at a figure we could live with” said Schilthuis. But when fielding took it back to Council – council turned it down.
Fielding made another attempt at brokering a deal – but HSS didn’t like the look of the numbers the second time around. They had a better picture as to who did what when as a result of the examinations for discovery and took a pass on the offering Fielding made.
The final settlement documents will get prepared and signed, cheques will get sent out and bills paid and everyone will move on.
At some point the city and Schilthuis will have to figure out what they want to do with the steel, beams that were taken out of the pier, that is now sitting in the HSS work yard in Ancaster. Schilthuis sold the property and is moving to a new location in Caledonia and the steel will have to be removed
By Pepper Parr
June 23, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
In the world of politics what matters most is the spin that can be put on news that is not all that good. And in the world of politics there is a lot of news that is not that good.
 Steel beams are swung into place during the second round of pier construction. The city of Burlington held a media briefing this morning in which they announced that they had settled their disputes with the people they were suing over the delays in the construction of the Brant Street Pier. They made it sound like a victory.
Interim city manager Pat Moyle explained that a pool of funds had been created and that the city was given $1.5 million from that pool of funds to cover their legal costs.
The mediated settlement, which has yet to be ratified, also said the city did not have to return $500,000 in a holdback they had on hand.
What the public has yet to learn is:
Who put money into the pool of funds? The city said they didn’t put in any money.
Who were they holding back money from? The city wouldn’t say.
All we got was an explanation as to what the city got – not a word about what they didn’t get which was the several million they had sued HSS for when they walked off the job when the determined the pier could not be built with the plans they were given.
After issuing the writs the city was given an alternative proposal from Zurich Insurance to complete the building of the pier for an increased amount. The exact amount the insurance company wanted to complete the job was never very clear.
The idea of creating a pool of funds into which different companies would contribute and then see them distributed to the damaged parties is both creative and unique. Of interest to the citizens of Burlington who have had to pay more than $6 million to Graham Infrastructure to strip away steel and put in new steel and pour new cents to complete the deck of the pier which opened officially just over a year ago.
The city is positioning this as a win – and to some degree it is. They could have gotten whacked by the original contractor for the losses he experienced.
What the public does not know yet is who had to put money into the pool of funds and how much did the different parties put in.
And then – who was that money distributed to?
Let’s look at the parties to the dispute: There were nine of them.
Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited sued the City of Burlington
City of Burlington sued Zurich Insurance Company (Bonding Company for HSS)
City of Burlington who sued HSS, EFCO, Aecom, Lombard, PV &V, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
City of Burlington sued Aecom
HSS sued Lombard, PV &V, City, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
Out of this crowd who is likely to have gotten money from the pool of funds that was created? We know that the city got $1.5 million to cover their legal costs.
While there has not been a public statement sources indicate that Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited did not contribute to the pool of funds and an unauthorized spokesperson said “Henry was happy” Henry Schilthuis is the president of HSS.
 Re bar in place ready for the concrete pour around the node that is now the observation platform. City skyline in the background That leaves a bunch of insurance companies and AECOM.
We expect to know in the near future what Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited was paid out of the pool of funds.
City Council was given a full briefing and “approved a settlement related to the Brant Street Pier that totals $2 million for the City of Burlington and more than pays for the city’s legal costs.” That’s a pretty positive spin. No mention of the millions they sued HSS for because he quit the job he felt couldn’t be built with the plans he was given.
The plans came from Totten Sims Hubicki, (TSH) the architects of the pier who were bought out by AECOM.
“The job of the mediator was to try and facilitate a settlement between the parties, whom I believe all came to table with a willingness to resolve their differences,” said Interim City Manager Pat Moyle.
“The settlement” explained Moyle “is still subject to the final approval of two of the parties’ boards, which the city expects will take place within 10 days from the date of settlement and execution of final releases. There is also a confidentiality agreement related to some of the terms.”
That gag order may prevent the public from ever knowing how much money went into the pool – not that knowing would make all that much difference. What we now know for certain is that the city didn’t recover a dime of the cost for the second contractor.
 Did the city’s reputation take a hit during the pier construction fiasco? We made headlines that was certain. Now we have a pier – it is heavily used and was it worth the price? Another condition that was released was this statement: “No contribution in any form to the settlement shall be deemed an admission of liability, and any such liability is denied.”
What the city has also not released is the amount they paid Morrison Hershfield for the quality assurance work and the amount paid the second project manager METTKO for the work they did to ensure they work was properly done the second time around.
The total cost of the Brant Street Pier construction is $14.4 million. (it is actually quite a bit higher than that). The Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program funded $4.4 million of this amount while Halton Region provided $2.5 million.
Does the settlement remove the pier as an election issue? Let’s see what unfolds in the next few days.
When asked what went wrong with the project Mayor Goldring said “there are some projects that just don’t work out”.
City staff on the legal and financial side did a very good job. Treasurer Joan Ford took part in the negotiations; if there is anyone who know what the numbers were – it was Ms Ford.
Former city manager Jeff Fielding was thanked for the “shuttle diplomacy” he did trying to get a deal from HSS. That didn’t work.
Getting your legal fees paid and then told to go home isn’t much of a victory – not after turning down an opportunity in 2011 to have the pier built for a lot less than the $6million plus we had to pay Graham Infrastructure and then turning down an opportunity in 2013 to settle.
 A lot of steel, a lot of concrete – did the public get value for the money that was spent. And are there lessons to be learned – and will anyone be held accountable? What appears to be clear – though not certain yet, is that there was a problem with the design which moves the liability to AECOM and the TSH firm they purchased.
When some of the other parties make public statements the picture will become clearer. The city did the right thing strategically and politically by putting out a statement and putting the needed spin on their story.
The fact is – we paid for the pier twice.
 By Staff
June 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Dinner is done, school is over so getting the kids to bed on time doesn’t matter all that much anymore . Taking in an outdoor movie late in the week at a local park sounds like a good idea. The Rocca Sisters and Associates, a local real estate firm, are sponsoring what they are calling a Stars under the Stars family movie night that will take place at Emerson Park located in north east Burlington.
 It is the first FREE outdoor movie night taking place on June 26th at 7:30pm. Several food truck operations will be on hand: SWOT (Sandwiches with a Twist) and Fro Go Xpress are confirmed.
The featured blockbuster film The Lego Movie is a sure hit – even if it has already been see.
Emerson Park is at 2390 Sutton Drive, Burlington
Funds raised through sponsorship dollars, partial proceeds through food truck sales and donations the night of the event will be going to the Joseph Brant Hospital Foundation.
By Pepper Parr
June 21, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
It started on Wednesday – It was to be the first day of a three day mediation marathon that on occasion started at 7:00 am and went on into the early evening.
When a crane on the pier site toppled and revealed serious imperfections with the steel being used every one of the cross beans had to be stripped leaving just the steel that formed the lazy S curve that was to make the pier distinct. The only distinct thing about the pier is its costs and the bad taste it has left in the mouths f the people who have to pay the bill.
 When a crane on the pier site toppled and revealed serious imperfections with the steel being used everyone of the corss beans had to be stripped leaving just the steel that formed the lazy S curve that was to make the pier distinct. The only distinct thing about the pier is its costs and the bad taste it has left in the mouths f the people who have to pay the bill. There were between 20and 30 people in the room at times arguing over who owes what to who on the pier construction problems. But for a time all the horses were not in the starting gate and there appeared to be some confusion as to whether or not one of the key players – AECOM – was going to show up and take part in what was scheduled as a three day event to attempt to settle the several million dollar difference of opinion on who owed who what.
While Burlingtonians and the people who visit the city do enjoy the pier – it isn’t fully paid for yet. What was put to the public as a close to $7 million project ballooned to more than $14 million and could go considerable higher when the court cases get worked out.
The city has been in litigation with Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited (HSS), the original contractor, Zurich Insurance Company (Bonding Company for HSS), Aecom, Lombard, PV &V, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
The mediation ended on Friday. There has not been an announcement as to whether or not the parties were able to come to an agreement.
How will this city council react to whatever news the city solicitor is going to give them Monday on the outcome of the court ordered mediation over the law suits on the costs of the pier? And will council be open, honest and up front with their constituents and tell them the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth. The seven of them will be asking you to re-elect them in October.
 How will this city council react to whatever news the city solicitor is going to give them Monday on the outcome of the court ordered mediation over the law suits on the costs of the pier? And will council be open, honest and up front with their constituents and tell them the truth, the whole and and nothing bt the truth. The seven of them will be asking you to re-elect them in October.. What we do know is that a Special meeting of city council has been called for Monday, June 23rd at 10:30 an when the city’s solicitor will speak to council in a closed session on the Brant Street Pier litigation.
So – something has happened and council is to get a briefing.
here are two possible directions: Mediation was successful and the city has settled with the other parties or mediation failed and the case will then go to trial.
Mediation is a way to keep differences out of a court room. People involved in legal disputes – and in the pier situation there are five law suits – are required to at least attempt to mediate that dispute. It is useful to look at who is suing who:
Harm Schilthuis and Sons Limited (HSS) vs. City of Burlington
City of Burlington vs. Zurich Insurance Company (Bonding Company for HSS)
City of Burlington vs. HSS, EFCO, Aecom, Lombard, PV &V, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
City of Burlington vs. Aecom
HSS vs. Lombard, PV &V, City, Craneway (Insurance Claim)
What is instructive here is that HSS, the original contractor, is suing their insurance company and their insurance broker. You sue when you believe the service you bought was not delivered. HSS is also suing the city of Burlington – they believed they delivered and that the city has not paid for what was delivered.
The city is suing Zurich insurance – this is the company that provided the performance bond for the construction company – HSS. Early in this term of council the insurance company, Zurich, offered the city an alternative construction solution which the city turned down.
If mediation was successful and the parties came to an agreement council may be asked to approve the settlement. Frequently in such settlements one of the conditions is a “confidentiality agreement” often referred to as a gag order. No one is allowed to say anything other than that a settlement was reached.
The city sent more than $1 million on legal fees and didn’t want the public to know until the Post filed a Freedom of Information request which the city at first decided to argue against but saw the error of that idea and held a press conference in January at which they had then city manager Jeff Fielding tell the public that $1,349,952 $1. had been spent to date on just the legal fees. The city would get a rebate on the tax portion of that bill – but a million dollars is still a million dollars.
While no one on city council will admit it today – there was more than one occasion when the city had an opportunity to settle the dispute for a lot less than it is going to cost. Exactly how much the cost will amount to may be known on Monday – in a perfect world council would have the courage of their convictions to tell the public just what that costs is – but we should not hold our breath.
While the pier problems didn’t originate with this council – all that started when Rob MacIsaac became Mayor and wanted a grand legacy project that would put Burlington on the map. And it certainly did that. Things began to go wrong when a crane that was doing work on the pier toppled over.
The contractor at the time HSS and the insurance underwriters took a closer look at the steel that was being used – and there were problems with the product. At first a few beams were to be taken out and then a few more and before the public knew the structure had been stripped of much the steel and the original contractor was of the site.
The city re-tendered the project, a new contractor was brought in along with dozens of inspectors who checked every foot of the steel that was being fabricated to ensure that nothing went wrong the second time around.
The pier officially opened last June.
 It was a grand day. The turnout wasn’t terrific but it was a lively crowd with cup cakes for everyone. some key people were not on hand. Former Mayors Rob MacIsaac and Cam Jackson took passes – MacIsaac had a convocation. There was one person who had more reason than anyone else to be out on that Pier that morning – Henry Schilthuis, a proud man who is close to fierce when it comes to defending his reputation and the man who did the original work but had to walk off the site when he realized it could not be built using the original plans. On Monday city council will learn if Schilthuis was right and if they are going to be able to settle with Schilthuis or if there is going to be a trial. A closing note in a story that may not be over yet. Earlier in the week I had occasion to be having coffee with two people who were both candidates for council in the October municipal election. It was a fine late Spring day and after coffee the two council wanna be’s decided to take a stroll towards the pier. Neither had been out on the pier before, which stunned this reporter.
Is the pier an unpopular place? Is it a $20 million dollar mistake? While the city uses a figure of $14 million + as the cost of the pier – the mediation is going to move that number very very close to $20 million.
The question the Gazette has is this: Will the public ever be given a full detailed accounting as just what Rob MacIsaac’s dream has cost the city?
By Pepper Parr
June 20, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
It takes time to get anything done when the wheels of justice are required to move. The making of a judicial system is not a simple or easy process. It is based on years of precedent and the need to adhere to changes in social mores. And they don’t always get it right the first time. It took the city of Burlington a bit of time to get a grip in just what was going on when local residents reports hundreds of trucks rumbling along the northern part of Appleby Line filled with earth that was being dumped on the air park property. Was this a land fill site many wondered.
The air park was seen by almost everyone as a sleepy little rural airport, owned by a local family. But it got sold for a reported $3.1 million to Vince Rossi who had some very big ideas and what he thought was a shield that would protect him from such meddlesome things as municipal bylaws. It was an air park declared Mr. Rossi and regulated by the federal government and anyone at the municipal or Regional government s could basically take a hike and keep out of Rossi’s business.
 This photograph depicts a seminal point in the evolution of public engagement for the city of Burlington. City general manager Scott Stewart talks to members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, two of whom are bing sued for $100,000 bu the Burlington Air Park. Top the left at the rear is Blake Hurley, city lawyer who handled the city side of the two air park court cases. Seated on the left is the lawyer the city hired to argue the court cases and advise the city. Rossi got away with that kind of behaviour for quite some time – but there was a higher quality of civic government at city hall and they wanted to take a look at that “federally regulated” argument – and they found that it really didn’t hold all that much water.
Orders to cease and desist and all the options available to the city were used but when it became very clear that the air park was going to stick to its federally regulated position – off to a court room they all went. The city won the first round – Justice John Murray said the air park had to adhere to the city’s site plan by law.
It took the air park legal counsel less than five days to file an appeal of the Murray decision. The decision of the Appeal Court was even swifter – three hours after proceedings had begun the three Justice appeal panel said the Justice Murray was right – the air park has to comply with the city site plan by law. At some point in the very near future – the city will begin to press its case and demand that the air park present a site plan for work that has been going on for more than five years.
The Region recently hired AMEC, the former Phillips Environmental, to do an assessment of the storm water systems at the air park. Apparently AMEC had some difficulty getting on the site, but we have not been able to confirm that. The heavy rains of a few weeks ago saw small rivers of water running south along Appleby Line that did enough damage to require the Region to come in and repair the road shoulders. The Region now wants to be assured that storm water from the site can be effectively handled.
The local residents want to know ho is going to pay for the road repairs The Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, the organization the air park lawyers call an “unincorporated collection of citizens” has gone public again and asked the city to re-double their efforts and begin ensuring that the soil on that 200 acre air park property be fully and properly inspected – and no more of this fighting tooth and nail to get inspection reports that the air park appears to want kept secret.
In an Open Letter to Mayor Goldring and Regional Chair Gary Carr, Vanessa Warren, a candidate for the ward 6 seat, home to the air park, said the following:
On behalf of the residents of rural north Burlington, the members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition and I would like to congratulate you on your enormous victory at the Ontario Court of Appeal. Thank you and City Staff for all your work and leadership on this precedent-setting case. Because of your commitment to protect our rural north and its protected countryside, the City of Burlington now stands as an example to other Ontario communities dealing with airpark fill operations.
The summary nature of the Appeal Court’s dismissal was, for our community, both gladdening and concerning. Gladdening because the City was so clearly vindicated and can now proceed to test and control fill quality on Airpark property through its Site Alteration bylaw, protecting our lands and water table from environmental damage. Concerning because it affirmed our beliefs that the Burlington Airpark and its legal team are unreasonably litigious. Our community continues to be under serious threat from the Burlington Airpark, this time through the use of Ontario’s onerous defamation laws against local advocates.
Their counsel, Brian Rogers, a leading libel lawyer and member of the Attorney General’s Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel, intends to defend them on the basis this lawsuit is no more than a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). In short, it is another legal action, without merit, brought to intimidate, silence and exhaust – both emotionally and financially – its opponents.
 The north Burlington citizen’s fight to defend their rights and their property was seen important enough bu the CBC National News to be given some coverage. So, while we are elated with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal today, and grateful for the City’s commitment to environmental protection, we need your support now more than ever. We need to defend public engagement and public advocacy – the cornerstones of our democratic system – from the Burlington Airpark’s SLAPP suit, so that this type of legal coercion does not silence the citizens of Burlington.
 Councillors Paul Sharman and Blair Lancaster, both serving their first term on city council were both members of the committee that wrote the Shape Burlington report, the document that marked the beginning of significant community participation. Unfortunately, neither Sharman or Lancaster have been strong advocates for community involvement and while there is an Engagement Charter it is a document that doesn’t get much use. Expecting Burlington to defend public engagement is a bit of a stretch. The city has yet to truly put its engagement charter into the hands of the public. But a public plea is better than nothing – at some point Burlington will get a city council that is attentive and responsive to it electors. We just aren’t there yet.
 By Pepper Parr
June 15, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Like many good ideas – it starts out in a basement or someone’s garage and if it is right it grows from there.
The Burlington Chapter of 100 Women Who Care were meeting in a pretty drab looking community room at Tansley Wood and while the number of people involved was growing the rate of growth was a little disappointing.
Then out of the blue, BDO offered to cover the cost of a location that was certainly higher up the food chain. The June 18, 2014, from 7:30 – 8:30 p.m. will be held at the Burlington Golf & Country Club at 422 North Shore Blvd. E., Burlington.
BDO is the fifth largest single national accounting and advisory partnership in Canada with over 100 offices nationwide. It is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company. The offer to pay for the Golf and Country Club space makes for a much nicer setting.
Marion Goard, one of the Burlington Chapter’s founding members announced that another local business – Dermetics, a firm that offers medical, surgical and cosmetic dermatology services had stepped up and gotten involved.
The Dermetics support is unique and solves a problem that many small local firms have when deciding where and how to support the community. “The office manager at Dermetics” explained Goard, “reached out to me with an offer to support 100 Women. The rationale behind this is that they receive a fair number of requests for support from various sources and have a tough time determining who to support. By being involved with us, they know that their financial contribution is going to great causes, is being spread out across the city and they get their staff involved.
 Dermetics registered 10 memberships with Woman Who Care. This allows 10 of their staff to attend the meetings where they participate fully – as if they were funding their donation themselves however Dermetics will write the cheque to the recipient organization.
This is something a number of organizations might find very useful – it allows the company to support the community without tying up staff in the selection process. It also lets staff attend the meeting and be part of that selection process. It will be interesting to see if anyone else picks up on this.
The 100 Women Who Care model has its roots in the United States with several chapters forming across the U.S. and Canada since 2006. The mandate of the group is simple: 100 women or more meet four times a year to choose from three charities nominated for consideration. Members cast their ballot and then each write a $100 cheque for the charity that gets the winning vote. The goal is to raise a minimum of $40,000 annually ($10,000 x 4 meetings) in support of local initiatives.
The Burlington Chapter, founded by Marion Goard, Pat Grant, Megan Teall and Laurel Hubber, held its first meeting at the beginning of this year raising more than $3,000 for the Burlington Humane Society. At their second meeting they raised $4,000 for Halton Women’s Place.
Part of the appeal of 100 Women Who Care is that at each meeting the beneficiary of the last donation has a chance to address the membership to thank the group and to share how the donation will have an immediate impact in our community. “On Wednesday, Kaitlin Gordon, Development Coordinator from Halton Women’s Place will share with us how our $4,000 donation is making a difference to women’s lives in Halton. After Ms Gordon’s presentation, our members will listen to three 5-minute presentations about three new charities, take a vote and make their donations to the chosen beneficiary immediately afterwards,” says Goard.
Heading into the third meeting, support for 100 Women Who Care Burlington continues to grow. “We always welcome individual members as well as businesses who wish to be corporate sponsors to join us at our June meeting,” says Goard. “And whether you are new to the group or are already a member, we’re sure everyone will be excited to see how a small group of women can make a difference in our community – in just one hour.”
You can RSVP your attendance to info@100womenwhocareburlington.com. Nominations for charities/organizations can be filled out online ahead of the meeting at Nominations will also be accepted the night of meeting.
Registration begins at 7:00 p.m., with the meeting starting promptly at 7:30 p.m.
Goard does point out that the Burlington Chapter has some catching up to do. “I learned that the Greater St. Johns March donation exceeded $29,000 and they have over 900 ‘Likes’ on their Facebook page. We definitely have a ways to go to keep up with them. I’m not sure what’s holding things back here.”
Maybe the Golf and Country setting will make the difference.
 By Pepper Parr
June 12- 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The bigger picture of the Burlington Air Park Inc., appeal of a lower court decision is now becoming clearer.
There are losses and there are losses – this one was a trouncing.
In the Appeal Court process has each side giving oral arguments based on the documents that were prepared beforehand. That collection of documents is called a Factum.
The appellant, in this case the Burlington Air Park Inc., proceeds first. At any point during the oral arguments either of the three appeal court judges can intercede and ask questions.
Peter Wells spoke for more than two hours and delved into all the reasons why the lower court ruling, the one given by Justice Murray in Milton should not stand. They ranged from inter jurisdictional immunity to the argument that the court case was never about the content of the landfill – which came as a surprise to the 11 Burlingtonians in the court room.
One of the judges asked Wells if the air park could faithfully obey federal laws why could they not obey municipal laws?
Wells later said that Justice Murray misunderstood what the real issues were. Several in the court reported later they they believed this was the point at which Wells lost his case. Several of the observers felt Wells glossed over the environment issues and one appeal court judge asked Wells directly if he thought Justice Murray was wrong. Wells said he believed Justice Murray was wrong.
Prior to the hearing Burlington Air Park Inc., filed a motion to have new evidence submitted. The court accepted the new evidence and then asked Wells what any of this had to do with the Murray decision.
The new evidence was related to an action the city had brought against King Paving that was later dropped; discussions about King Paving being able to bid on future city contracts and the Pinchin Environmental report dated April 7, relating to a “groundwater monitoring program limited environmental site assessment. Terrapex is currently reviewing that report for the city. It is a very, very complex detailed report .
The judges didn’t see it as relevant.
They took another short break, returned to the courtroom and advised Mr. Wells that they were deciding to dismiss his appeal.
Ian Blue didn’t have to say a word. He didn’t have to defend his Factum. The appeal court judges didn’t see a case to be argued and everyone was dismissed. The moment the judges were out of the court room the Burlington crowd burst into spontaneous applause.
It was over
The justices also awarded the city $22,000 in costs. These court cases are fast becoming a profit centre for the city.
The city put out its press release saying the “Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld the decision that the City of Burlington’s site alteration bylaw applies to the Burlington Executive Airport.
“The city’s bylaw is valid and binding on the Burlington Airpark and the city is able to enforce its bylaw.”
The Mayor is a happy camper: “The city has shown its commitment to the residents of Burlington in keeping the site alteration bylaw in effect, even in challenging circumstances. He congratulated city staff who persevered in doing the right thing for our residents in ensuring that fill does not continue to pile up on the site and that there are some controls in place to help our community when affected by operations such as the airpark.”
Many of those residents are wondering why the land fill was allowed on the site in the first place.
Ward 6 Councillor Blair Lancaster, who has had her problems with the residents directly impacted by the land fill dumping, said “I am pleased for the people who live near the Burlington Airpark that this decision has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is an important moment for those residents, and I am hopeful that things will improve for them.”
The city will meet with legal counsel to determine next steps.
The site alteration bylaw allows the city to regulate how a piece of land can be altered, such as through filling, grading or excavation. The city is updating its site alteration bylaw, which regulates how a piece of land can be altered through filling, grading or excavation, and is hosting a public information meeting to review the new version on Thursday, June 19 from 7 to 9 p.m. at City Hall, 426 Brant St., Room 247.
The really critical question is – which version of the bylaw will be used to bring the air park to heel – and are we done with the appeals?
Barbara Sheldon, who has suffered the most damage at this point – but there are neighbouring farms that will not know for years if they will suffer damages and who knows when whatever is in that fill is going to work its way into the water table, has become the “poster girl” for the movement opposed to the air park work. She has done a CBC News interview as well as a CFRB radio interview and is seldom at a loss for words had this to say about the appeal dismissal: “The verdict of the Appellate Judges, upholding Justice Murray’s ruling that the City can enforce its site alteration by-laws, may be the first, real turning point to the restoration of the properties and lives that Rossi has willfully and deliberately damaged since he bought the Airpark.
“Unfortunately, Mr. Rossi’s proven history with this community has destroyed any possible belief from me that Mr. Rossi will ever comply with the City or respect his neighbors.
“What I do have hope for, is that the pilots will now take back their ‘club’ and restore it to the wonderful, recreational airpark that was built and operated for 60+ years by the Kovachiks’, and that it once again co-exists in harmony within the community and the City of Burlington, as it did under their ownership.”
Vince Rossi does not make himself available to the Gazette. He is currently suing this newspaper on a web site along with two north Burlington residents for damaging his reputation and has asked the court to award him $100,000 in exemplary damages.
Defences are being prepared – a court date has yet to be determined.
Rossi said he will be meeting with his legal team to determine how to proceed with the planned expansion of the air park. He apparently expressed hopes that the city ““might be more conciliatory.” Rossi is reported to have said: “We’ve been conciliatory with the city all along up until this recent situation. It’s not like we did anything the city was not aware of.”
City general manager Scott Stewart talks to members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition during a council meeting break. On the far right sits Monte Dennis, of of the people being sued by the air park; in the row behind sits Vanessa Warren who is also one of the defendants in the libel suit with the air park. On the left, standing is Blake Hurley, the city legal staffer who handed the air park file for the city. Seated on the left is Ian Blue the lawyer who has done some very good work for the city. Vanessa Warren, founder of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition and a candidate for the ward 6 council seat in the October municipal election, hopes that this decision will open up the blockages on getting environmentally based information from the province and that the Ministry of the Environment might soon be able to go on site and test the soil “which is the problem.”.
 Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Air Park and believed to be the sole shareholder of the private company, met with north Burlington residents. He took all the comments made “under advisement”.. Right now the city and the MOE are battling over Freedom of Information FOI requests that have been made and denied. They city is either at the mediation or adjudication level on several of these FOI requests.
Where is all this going? It probably isn’t over yet. The air park has a very significant $4.5 million investment and they aren’t just going to walk away from it.
Ideally for the community the land fill will eventually get tested – and if it found to be damaging – then it has to come out.
Who pays for that? The people who own the land. Right now Vince Rossi own the air park and no one can see his bank foreclosing on the mortgage they hold – they don’t want title to the land.
There is a 200 acre piece of prime land up there – at some point someone is going to have to come up with an idea for the property. Vince Rossi believed he had a great idea but he has not managed to sell that idea to anyone.
Don’t expect any innovative ideas from the council you are going to elect in October
 By Pepper Parr
June 11, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Based on an as yet verified report from the Osgoode Hall Ontario Court of Appeal, Burlington Air Park Inc., appears to have lost the second round in efforts to build an air park without having to comply with municipal rules and regulations.
A panel of three judges dismissed the appeal on the spot – which is a bit unusual. Frequently appeal courts take time to review the documents and the pleadings and then write their decision and release it at a later date.
The Burlington Air Park Inc., can seek leave to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court.
We will seek additional details on this matter and follow up.
The tide has certainly turned on this situation. The city can now begin thinking about just what it is going to require of the air park in terms of compliance with the site plan by-law. And residents who have suffered significant property value losses can begin to think in terms of damages they will want to seek.
By Pepper Parr
June 10, 10, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
It could not have come at a better time for the north Burlington residents who are looking forward to a second day in court where they hope what they see as an errant, illegal land fill operation finally have the boots put to it.
The Gazette has followed this story since we first got word of the truck rumbling up and down Appleby Line with landfill from quite where no one knew.
Three notices of libel during which we were given an opportunity to retract what we had published, notices to two other north Burlington residents as well and then finally a Statement of Claim from the Burlington Air Park Inc., that we had damaged their reputations and needed to be punished to the tune of $100,000 by way of exemplary damages, And this isn`t over yet.
CBC National News has picked up the story which will broadcast this evening on the national network. The following is a transcript of what the CBC will run.
Rural Ontario residents fear contents of soil dumped near their properties
Anger over some landowners accepting millions of dollars worth of soil dug up in Toronto
Jun 10, 2014 11:43 AM ET
Marnie Luke, CBC News
Residents living in rural communities near Toronto are demanding to know what’s in the thousands of truckloads of soil being dumped on property near them.
 Barbara Sheldon’s farmland is located on the edge of Burlington, Ont., and is now walled in by a three-storey berm of dirt brought in by her neighbour, who owns the small Burlington Executive Airport next door.
She is worried about what might be in the muddy mix.
“We’re sitting ducks waiting for the contaminants to leach,” she said.
Sheldon told CBC’s Diana Swain that anyone in the country could face the same problem.
“They could lose everything. That is what happened to me. I lost everything,” she said.
“I’ve lost my property value. For five years I’ve lost the use of my land, I’ve lost the use of my home. I mean, from sun up to sun down and sometimes at night and on weekends we’re talking back-up beepers, we’re talking about dump trucks surrounding me,” Sheldon said.
Need for places to dump dirt will increase
Rural residents are angry that some landowners are taking in millions of dollars worth of soil dug up from Toronto-area construction sites with little oversight. The City of Toronto estimates nearly four million cubic metres of soil will be dug up in the next 10 years for Toronto water and transit projects alone.
With more and more soil being displaced to make room for condos, transit, Pan Am Games venues and other urban development projects, the need for places to dump that dirt is only going to increase.
Some municipalities have bylaws about using private property for landfill, but rules around soil testing and the amount of dirt that can be dumped are muddy.
Ontario environmental commissioner Gord Miller said it’s time for tougher rules as well as clarification on who has jurisdiction.
“We don’t have security on piles, on areas where we know there is contaminated soil … and it can be removed and sort of mixed in and how would we know? So there is legitimate concern when large volumes of soil are being deposited in rural areas with very little checking,” he said.
‘Disingenuously raising concerns’
Sheldon said every level of government she contacted for help since the dumping began five years ago said it wasn’t their responsibility.
 Court documents obtained by CBC News show Vince Rossi, owner of the Burlington Executive Airport, earned more than $855,000 accepting fill at the Burlington airport between the years 2011 to 2013.
In a statement to CBC News, Rossi accused his neighbours of “disingenuously raising environmental concerns.”
Rossi said the Ministry of the Environment has not found a problem with the fill he is using.
He also said that municipal bylaws don’t apply to his property.
“As for the issue of jurisdiction, our view is that only Transport Canada has a say over the nation’s airports,” he wrote.
The City of Burlington took the airport to court last year and got the dumping stopped. An appeal of that decision will be heard on June 11.
Similar disputes are playing out in other rural communities, like New Tecumseth in Simcoe County, which sits on the environmentally protected Oak Ridges Moraine about an hour north of Toronto.
A caravan of trucks began dumping dirt on the local air strip there four years ago, and concerned residents say they haven’t been able to get answers about what’s in the soil or the potential impact to well water.
Voluntary guidelines
Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment issued voluntary industry guidelines last year on testing and disposing of soil. But a report by the City of Toronto’s chief planner raises concerns that the guidelines do not deal with excess soil moved across jurisdictional boundaries.
“As a result, there continues to be a policy and regulatory gap in this area,” the report says.
Concerned citizens and environmental groups have formed the Ontario Soil Regulation Task Force, and are calling on the province to create an enforceable Clean Soil Act.
“That fill has to go somewhere. Somebody’s going to find a place for it, because it’s got money attached to it,” Sheldon said. “Until that money is removed from the fill, they should charge people. You want to put it here? OK, you pay us, developers. The whole system’s broken from the start.”
Miller, Ontario’s environmental commissioner, said to tackle the problem, you have to start at the source.
“The people who dig the holes should be responsible cradle to grave to making sure that soil is not only going somewhere where it’s safe, but somewhere where it’s wanted, and deposited in a manner that’s acceptable to the receiving municipality and the local residents,” Miller said.
The CBC is understood to be planning a series of television features on the problem. The natives north of Dundas will be beating their drums wildly tonight as they prepare for the appeal hearing tomorrow.
 By Pepper Parr
June10, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON The structure is majestic. The hallways are grand; the court rooms ooze of power and authority. The library is magnificent. Within the volumes on the shelves is the legal foundation of the province; the decisions the courts have issued which define us as a society that lives by the rule of law that is applied to everyone equally.
 View of Osgoode Hal;l from Queen Street West The building was named to honour of the province’s first chief justice, William Osgoode
It is here that maybe 20 or so people from Burlington will travel Tuesday morning to hear Ian Blue, QC argue the city’s side of an appeal made by Burlington Air Park Inc., against Justice John Murray’s earlier decision that the air park did have to comply with city bylaws, specifically the site alteration bylaw.
The six-acre (24,000 m²) site at the corner of Lot Street (Queen Street West today) and College Avenue (University Avenue today) was acquired by the Law Society in 1828. The original 2 1⁄2-storey building was started in 1829 and finished in 1832 from a design by John Ewart and W. W. Baldwin.
Between 1838 and 1843, the hall was turned into troop barracks. When the Law Society regained possession in 1844, an expansion was designed by Henry Bowyer Lane; the West Wing and Library were built, with two domes (later removed) over the library to connect the two wings.[5] In 1846 the Law Society entered into an agreement with the government to house the province’s Superior Court at the hall. Today, the building is jointly owned by the Law Society and the Government of Ontario.
 Main law library – there is another reserved for judges.  The belief once was that the wrought iron gates were put in place to keep cattle off the grounds. Not so – but the grounds are truly something to appreciate. Two libraries are housed within Osgoode Hall: the Great Library of the Law Society of Upper Canada and a smaller library for judges. The Great Library was designed by Cumberland and Storm (1857–1860) and features an ornate plaster ceiling, cork floors, and etched glass windows. A War Memorial by Frances Norma Loring (1887–1968), sculpted in 1928, was added to the Library in honor of Ontario lawyers and law students killed during the First World War. Behind the Great Library (and accessible through it) is the American Room, designed by Burke and Horwood in 1895, a more intimate room with a spiral staircase.
 A five judge appeal court panel. Ian Blue and Peter E. J. Wells will argue their case before a three member panel. There is the belief in the minds of some that this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada For those able to make the trip, I am reluctantly not with that crowd today, soak up the splendour of the setting and the history that literally pervades the walls and know that you are in a building where the rule of law prevails.
Be prepared for an experience.
 By Pepper Parr
June 8, 2104
BURLINGTON, ON.
Odd how things sometime work out.
Pat Moyle is driving home in his car, wife with him. He takes the call.
Burlington’s Mayor Rick Goldring is on the line.
 Pat Moyle believes he knows why Goldring is calling. Burlington needs a city manager – the one we had found that Calgary was more to his liking. Moyle had recently retired as the Chief Administrative Officer of Halton Region and he knew everyone over there with municipal administrative skills. Moyle thought Goldring was looking for some names of people that might be available as interim city managers until the municipal election is over and a new council is sworn in.
Goldring wanted a little more than a recommendation –he wanted to be able to put Moyle’s name on a business card and have him serve as the interim city manager for as much as a year.
Apparently the Mrs. Moyle wasn’t ecstatic about the idea but Pat wasn’t taking to the Florida retirement stuff all that well – he still had harness he had not worn out and wanted to stay in the game. Pat said he would get back to Goldring but as one listened to Moyle explain the sequence this was a done deal.
Pat Moyle certainly knew what Burlington was all about – perhaps better than many at the “director level” in the city. He knew what the long term issues were, he was more than likeable and had worked with the top line people in the past. And he was certainly no slouch during the six years he served as the Regional CAO. This was going to be a good fit
Then there was that nice little $50,000 plus bonus for the city. Traditionally the municipal sector hires outside consultants who run an add and collect resumes. The tab fir that task comes in at around $50,000 each time.
The bonus for Burlington was that Moyle was going to be attending the annual meeting of the Canadian Association of Municipal Administrators, taking place just down the road in Niagara Falls. Moyle just took a bigger brief case and began to collect resumes – and get a clear sense as to who might find themselves wanting to move up the food chain and enjoy better beef.
Moyle might manage to clean up some of the problems at the city’s General Manager level as well.
That is the easy part of the job Pat Moyle took on as interim city manager. The rest of June is going to keep him humping. The Burlington Air Park appeal of Justice John Murray’s decision requiring the air park to comply with city bylaws will be heard next week. It will take a few months for a decision to work its way into the hands of the public but by the end of the appeal hearing the city will have a sense as to where this might go. Wise people do not attempt to think through how an appeal court might decide. The decision could be handed down right smack in the middle of the waning days of the municipal election.
There are some very positive upsides to the appeal court decision for the city. Once the legal problems are solved the city can get on with the business of getting it right for the rural part of the city. That may mean different ownership of the air park property.
Less than a week after the Air Park appeal is heard Moyle will have to take part in the mediation of just who owes what for the construction of the pier – which is about to celebrate its first official year of existence.
The median will stretch over several days at the end of which a settlement will have been reached or the case goes to trial. Going to trial would probably be the better thing for this council. At this point no one knows what each of the five parties wants from the other. The numbers get put on the table the first day – which is when jaws we are told will drop.
The financial and emotional damage done to Harm Schilthuis and Sons Ltd., (HSS) has been absorbed – now they want their money and an apology that will make the past four years easier to have had to live with just a little easier.
When Jeff Fielding was managing the financial and legal side of the pier file he frequently used the phrase “everyone is going to have to give a little”. Fielding had a way at times of being very persuasive – but Jeff Fielding is no longer on the city payroll and his approach won’t work without him.
Moyle is for the most part on his own with a legal team that no longer has an upper hand. HSS is very clear on want they want; AECOM, the project managers have always been in this for the long haul. PV&V , an insurance brokerage may not have to pay a price for siding with someone other than their client. But it is the city that stands to lose the most.
If there is a settlement the public is going to want to know how much the city settled for – and that isn’t a number they will want to put on the table – so the city ensures that a gag order is included in the minutes of settlement.
 Steel re bar being put in place on the pier deck for the second time. First attempt got stripped back to the original beams But if HSS digs in their heels and demands that they finally get paid and be given the level of apology they feel they deserve – and they are the ones who have been trashed by most members of this city council and gotten by without payment of invoice that were approved for payment for more than three years – then the city has a tough one in front of them. The days of everyone having to give a little are long gone.
Assuming the pier becomes a campaign issue – and it should – there is an opportunity for every Councillor and the Mayor to reflect on what they could have done differently
Pat Moyle has been with us as interim city manager barely month – he might be a significantly different man by the end of June. The Senior management team he leads might be quite a bit different before he turns in his keys as well. We got lucky with Moyle and if the idea to sound him out was Mayor Goldring’s – great, finally, some leadership.
By Pepper Parr
June 5, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
First it was the provincial election debate, then it was the Stanley Cup games, now it’s the Meltdown in Moncton and with the cup still not won yet – hockey is back in the picture.
Tough for a small town like Burlington to get any air time on national television but it appears that the he CBC National News program on air park problems across Ontario and the Burlington Air Park In., in particular will now be a multi-part effort that will run over a period of time.
The CBC News crew was on site last week recording the damage done, as well as the pristine view the owner of one Appleby Line used to have.
The purpose of the series is to take a look at just what has been happening across the province where small air parks are using their sites to dump fill on – the premise being that they are “improving” their property which they claim is not subject to municipal bylaws but only the dictates of the federal aeronautics legislation.
The situation with the air park in Burlington is a little more advanced than it is in other municipalities. The city won its first court case, which has been appealed and will be heard June 11.
Ian Blue, the lawyer retained by the city to argue the appeal, will be on the air for part of the series which at this point in time is scheduled for June 10th – but every Canadian knows that when the Stanley Cup playoffs are taking place – everything has to adjust that that schedule.
In a note the area residents CBC said: “This is a heads-up to inform you that I have been advised that CBC National News will be airing a report on the fill operations currently underway at various airparks in Ontario – including the Burlington Airpark – and the impacts these have had on the local citizens and the environment.”
They plan to lead the story with footage of the citizens’ rally planned for tomorrow at the Volk Airpark near Tottenham.
 It might take more than a year for the problems with the air park to get resolved – but the noose is now getting tighter and tighter. The city and its citizens along with the hundreds of pilots who make legitimate use of the runways now need to begin thinking what could and should be done with that 200 acres of land. Properly approached by a developer that is prepared to follow the rules and adjust to changing conditions. The end game will soon be upon us. The story was scheduled to be aired Wednesday June 4th, but that got bumped)
CBC had planned to roll them out on Wednesday but The National’s lineup is heavy and the show is delayed because of hockey so we’re holding it until next week.
CBC added that ”we were only able to skim the surface of some of the issues in this first bit of coverage, and there are many issues we’ve either not yet touched on, or have not had time to fully explain. We plan to keep looking into various issues and story lines that came up over the course of gathering elements for this initial coverage, so I will likely be back in touch again in the near future with more questions.”
Burlington is finally going to get coverage of a critical community event from an organization that has much more in the way of resources than the Gazette will ever have.
By Pepper Parr
May 30, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
While the CBC News crew was doing its interview on the Sheldon property on Appleby Line, construction equipment and work crews along with what were believed to be crew managers were seen.
Once it became evident to them that camera crews were on the property filming they retreated but the equipment remained on the site
There is a very solid community in north Burlington that watches what goes on like a bunch of hawks. Their objective is to document and photograph as much as they can; including run off from the air park site where tonne upon tonne of partially inspected fill was dumped without the required sit plan alteration permit.
A Superior Court judge has ruled that the air park must comply with municipal bylaws. Burlington Air Park Inc., has appealed that decision. The appeal will be heard in Toronto June 11, 2014
 Appleby Line property owner does a CBC News interview with view of the landfill dumped without a site alteration permit.  Construction crews skulk away in the background. They appeared not to be available for an interview.  Construction crews continue their work just out of site of news camera crews.
By Pepper Parr
May 29, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
The weather was great; fine day to be working outside – but it didn’t work out quite that way for a couple of King Paving workers.
 CBC News crew was on site at one of the Appleby Line properties destroyed by the air park site alteration work being done without benefit of a permit. Program to be aired early in June.  King Paving work crew has difficulty digging a small trench with a backhoe on the south side of the air park. The work was being done on air park property.
The trenching problems just happened to take place the day a CBC National News team was on site to film a portion of a show that will air later in the month on development problems in both Burlington and elsewhere in the province.
The CBC crew appears to want to interview Mr. Rossi but was not able to do so today. Good luck with that effort. Vince Rossi, owner of the air park that is in the middle of a legal dispute with the city, is very choosy about who he gives interviews to. The appeal of the court case the air park lost a number of months ago is to be heard June 11th.
Given both the complexity and significance of this case for both the air park community and the municipal world it might be after Labour Day before a decision is handed down.
A few days after the hearing the city team overseeing this file will review what they heard in the court room and determine as best they can the city’s “plan B”.
Should a decision be available before the October municipal election that may well change the temperature and the tone of whatever the prime election issue is going to be.
 By Pepper Parr
May 28, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON. You have to understand Ron Foxcroft and his affinity with the world of sports. He has been around every game that is played and while he can, on occasion, get the ball in the basket – that isn’t what he is known for.
 The whistle business all started on the floor of a basketball court. Earlier in the week there was a need to talk with Ron Foxcroft – getting to him is not easy – he is on the go from just after seven to late into the evening most days.
But get through we did – and started our conversation asking if he had caught the game – that being the one where the Habs took a hockey game in the direction it was meant to go – 7-4 with a hat trick for the Canadiens too boot. “Of course I got to the game – I had to rush out of the Burlington Sports Hall of Fame inductee event but I saw that game.”
 The Official Whistle of the NHL with a logoed edition for the Stanley Cup finals provided by a high school dropout who lives in Aldershot.  Then he adds – “did you know that Foxcroft International made the whistles – the logoed whistles for the NHL final?
No we did not know that – would you send us a picture? And here it is. Another Foxcroft product.
We chatted about the stupendous game goalie Dustin Tokarski is putting in as he stands between the pipes. Of course we all know the kid used to play for the Hamilton Bulldogs – which at one point was owned by Ron Foxcroft.
What matters of course are those whistles – will they blow at the right time? For the right team?
We will be watching the two remaining games and hopefully the cup – the Stanley Cup, will rest where it belongs – in the head office of the Le Club de Hockey Canadien. It really should be at the Forum, just along St. Catherine Street in Montreal – half a block from the Toe Blake Tavern.
That was a different era – but the hockey then was still the same – great! Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Guy Lafleur – the dream goes on.
Background links:
Foxcroft on his own court.
By Staff
May 27, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
For the record:
In the Update to city council on matters relating to the Air Park staff said:
FOI (Freedom of Information requests) to MOE for Monitoring Plan and Details:
In May 2014 staff spoke with the Mediator from the Office of the Information and Privacy  Commissioner of Ontario. The Mediator has begun the process of contacting the third party (i.e. the Airpark) to inform them of the City’s scoped request to try and obtain information that pertains strictly to the proposed groundwater monitoring program at the Airpark, and any associated reports, studies and results. The Mediator is also continuing discussions with the MOE. At this point, staff will wait for further correspondence from the Mediator with respect to the possibility of receiving all or some of the requested information or whether additional discussion or mediation is necessary.
 Drill holes into the tonnes of landfill dumped on the air park property during the last five years. Very little of the landfill was inspected and it was put in place without an approved site plan. A Judge has already told the Air Park that they must comply with the city’s bylaw. The Air Park has appealed that decision which is their right.
What the Air Park cannot do however do is maintain that they are cooperating and have been transparent. The city’s most recent update does not square with what Vince Rossi is saying. Someone isn’t telling the truth here.
In a Letter to the Editor of the Hamilton Spectator Vince Rossi said:
To be clear, every test of neighbouring streams and wells has met or surpassed federal and provincial environmental standards. There have been six inspections, studies and/or tests carried out since 2009. None have indicated a problem with the fill or an adverse impact on local water. Further, after discussions with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, the airpark is in the process of voluntarily completing the most comprehensive study to date by carrying out a test well program
By 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.
 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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 .burlingtongazette.ca/ :
“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)
reply
Vanessa Warren says on April 17, 2014 at 11:39 am
 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 it‘s 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 don‘t 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 don‘t 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?
reply
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 community‘s 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.
reply
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.
reply
 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 don‘t 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
reply
Joan says on April 17, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Mabe someone should seek advice from Erin Brockovic.
- 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 .burlingtongazette.ca/ 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 https://www.burlingtongazette.ca/ and Twitter account https://twitter.com/OurBur . 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 ://twitter.com/VanessaAWarren “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 ://vanessawarren.ca/ 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! https://m.thespec.com/opinion-story /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.
 By Pepper Parr
May 19, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
We wrote a piece based on what we were told by our readers; ordinary people with strong convictions and a desire to get all the facts on the table.
Different readers had different search experiences (isn’t technology great?) for news about the Air Park which is a hot topic for people in Burlington.
The first hint we got was that everything about the air park had disappeared from the insidehalton web site was this: “I have been tracking for any coverage on the Burlington Airpark / Airport on Metro Media site (Spec and insideHalton) for some time. This weekend, all past articles on the Airpark have disappeared (there used to be a number of articles), and the return message shows that no search result found. What gives?”
That user got back to us with: , “I will continue to perform the search every day…“burlington airpark” airport on the whole Spec / Metro Media site. My searches today give me the following message…
We were unable to find results for “burlington airpark” in Burlington
That was followed by a comment from a reader who said everything after 2013 was no longer on the site.
That was followed by a comment from a reader who seemed to get a little panicky: “The article that Tina Depko-Denver won her recent award for (best rural story in Ontario community paper) no longer comes up on searches. This is freaking me right out.
“Here’s the link to the artcile (that I had to re-find via twitter) – see if you can find it by searching on insideHalton. https://m.insidehalton.com/news-story/3844524-airpark-neighbours-call-on-government-for-help/
That was followed by: “It came up for me.”
That was followed by this:
“The articles are all there…they come up in different order – by date or relevance – based on how you search for them.
“I get a different list based on how I search: searching by “rossi” as in Vince pulls up some, searching by “warren” as in Vanessa pulls them up in a different order of “relevance.”
“The best search is by “Burlington Executive Airport” it pulled up the most comprehensive list. It has them mostly sorted by date – since the article “neighbours call on government for help” as almost a year ago, it will appear lower down on the list, on page two.
“Here’s the list with that search function enabled:
https://www.insidehalton.com/search/news/?q=burlington%20executive%20airport&location=halton&sort=rel
Here are just some of the articles I found on the website dealing with the airpark.
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4417902-appeal-date-set-for-burlington-airpark-case/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4220726-burlington-airpark-launches-appeal-of-landfill-ruling/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4219079-burlington-wins-airpark-landfill-dispute/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/4252426-airpark-paying-city-40k-for-legal-fees/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/3839981-neighbours-of-burlington-airport-complain-of-ongoing-fill-activity/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/3907517-burlington-airport-city-hall-seeking-court-injunctions/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/3870812-leaders-speak-out-against-burlington-airport-expansion/
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/3844524-airpark-neighbours-call-on-government-for-help/
“I think this is a question of digital technology: what search words are being used, and the search tool pulling up information based on chronology and relevance.”
The Gazette has been very deliberate in not using the names of people who send in comments. The libel chill is still in the air.
It would appear that the information on the insidehalton web site is still in place. Finding it requires one to use the most effective search terms. Should it be easier? We suppose so but one cannot blame the people who run the insidehalton web site for the search terms their readers use.
It is all their and we expect it will continue to remain on the site. We had planned on trying to reach the operators of the insidehalton site – but the holiday schedule meant no one was picking up their telephones.
We were perhaps a little too quick to call shame on the Metromedia papers and for that we apologize. There are a lot of frightened people in Burlington – and they have every reason to be frightened.
Background links:
The first we heard of editorial material disappearing.
Air Park legal counsel sending out libel notices
|
|
