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.

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.

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.

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 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.”

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.”.

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 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

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

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.

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

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

1: The plaintiff claims:

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

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

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

(d)             costs together with HST.

The plaintiff

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

The defendants

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

The defamatory publications.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 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.

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

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

 The publication by Our Burlington and Parr on April 11, 2014 set out in paragraph 7 above was actuated by actual malice, in that it was published knowing it to be untrue, or reckless as to its truth. In an article dated April 9, 2014 Our Burlington and Parr republished allegations from an earlier posting dated July 16, 2013  that was, at April 16, 2014, still available on the http ://www.burlingtongazette .ca/ website, that the fill on the plaintiff s land was “toxic” and that the plaintiff had been running “an unlicensed landfill operation.” It also republished allegations from an August 5, 2013 posting     that     was,     at      April      16,      2014,      still      available      on      the  http ://www .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://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

April 24, 2014

BURLINGTON, ON.

It will not be news to our regular readers that we are involved with a potential lawsuit with the Air Park Inc.  They have taken the position that the Gazette libeled them in a number of articles we wrote recently.  We don’t believe we did any such thing.

The Gazette has covered this issue since June, 2013 when an Appleby Line resident alerted us to the number of trucks taking landfill onto the Air Park property.

We have recorded and reported as well as we could the various stages this situation has gone through from the point at which the Air Park said they were federally regulated and did not have to heed municipal bylaws through to the court case which resulted a decision from Justice John Murray that said the Air Park was required to comply with municipal by laws. 

When a corporation or an individual for that matter is ‘under the gun’ they begin to focus on the public perception of what they are doing.  There was a time when Vince Rossi had very little time, if any, for senior people at city hall.  “We got ‘the finger’ frequently” was the way one senior city hall bureaucrat put it.

With an appeal due to be heard in less than a month Mr. Rossi has begun to work on his image.

We recently saw a piece he wrote in the Spectator, which we have set out below. 

By Vince Rossi

As the owner of the Burlington Executive Airpark, I am proud of our long and accomplished history in Halton Region.

The airpark opened in 1962. Since that time, it has served as a flight training centre, an aircraft maintenance base, a recreational flying facility and a key transportation hub for Halton residents and businesses.

Thousands of pilots have received their training at Burlington Airpark, many of whom are now airline pilots who safely transport thousands of Canadians every day. The training and maintenance facilities, along with the charter services, are independently owned and provide skilled employment opportunities for our community. In addition, there are jobs for those who provide services to the airpark and the businesses located there.

Many leading companies, including Ford Motor Company, Mercedes-Benz Canada, Evertz Microsystems and L-3 Communications, use the airpark for the transportation of people and key materials.

… every test of neighbouring streams and wells has met or surpassed federal and provincial environmental standards.

The airpark is also used for patient transfers and organ donation flights, given its proximity to medical institutions that serve Burlington, Milton, Oakville, Mississauga and Hamilton.

Ontario’s air ambulance service uses special facilities installed at the airpark for advanced training.

The airpark is also used for law enforcement, search and rescue, military and ambulance flights.

Finally, the airpark is home to a thriving recreational aviation community. It is the host of community service events such as educational flights for school groups, the semi-annual Big Brothers Big Sisters Airlift and serves as a partner and rest stop in the PwC Epic Tour Halton, a regional biking event.

There is a shortage of smaller general aviation airports in southern Ontario with reasonable proximity to cities. The airpark is a unique and essential asset for Halton Region.

But we want to improve and do more.

I purchased the airpark from the Kovachik family in 2006, having done my own flight training here.

Since then, I have invested more than $4 million in infrastructure improvements. I have not received financial assistance from any level of government. This has included widening and improving both runways, adding taxiways, improving the refuelling facilities and building additional hangars.

We have always been open about our plans and goals to improve the airpark. Over the years, we have posted plans on our website and we have held a yearly reception as well several open houses and barbecues that have been attended by neighbours, airpark users and politicians of every level. At these events, we have shown our improvements and plans for the future.

Our efforts to improve the airpark were halted in July of last year, after complaints were raised by a few of our neighbours, some of whom had only recently purchased their homes. They made unsubstantiated claims that the fill being imported to level the remaining airpark lands was waste, which, of course, it was not.

The situation then became political. City of Burlington councillors repeated the unsubstantiated rumours of contamination. The City of Burlington, citing its site-alteration bylaw, took steps to stop the improvements. Despite the fact the airpark is federally regulated, we met with the councillors, city officials and our neighbours to try to address everyone’s concerns reasonably. Notwithstanding, the mayor of Burlington publicly vowed to take whatever steps the city could to stop the infilling.

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.

Sadly, we and the city are spending time and money in court to find out whether the city is entitled to control improvements at the airpark. During the past 60 years, courts across this country have held that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the location, design and materials used to build and improve airports. There are more than 1,400 airports across Canada. It would be chaos if each one was subjected to different municipal standards, which is what the courts have consistently held. We hope for a resolution in June.

I’ve always respected our neighbours and the City of Burlington and was hopeful that we could have reached a compromise that protected and enhanced the interests of all parties.

In the meantime, the Burlington Executive Airpark will continue to serve the interests of our community, and our region. We’re here for the long term and look forward to moving forward with our neighbours.

Vince Rossi is the owner of Burlington Airpark Inc.

Before the “I have always respected …” paragraph, Rossi has added the sentence: “I am saddened the situation has come to this” and after the paragraph he added the words: “I’m an optimist. I still believe it can happen.”

It is this changing the record and adding comments to suit his purposes that have resulted in the very deep mistrust between Vince Rossi and his neighbours.  This distrust has been evident from the very first delegation at city council when lawyer Glen Grenier was speaking and ward 1 Councillor Rick Craven asked:  “Why is your client such a lousy neighbour?’

The relationship between the city and the Air Park didn’t get any better for some time.  It appears that the Justice Murray decision and the pending appeal have persuaded Mr. Rossi to begin talking in terms of “a compromise that protects  and enhances the interests of all parties.”

Many people in rural Burlington feel it is a little too late for that.  They want the landfill out and tomorrow won’t be soon enough.  Justice Murray said what north Burlington residents wanted to hear: “This court has determined that the by-law is valid and binding on Burlington Air Park Inc.  The issue of enforcement is left to the municipal authorities.

One observant reader passed along information on the Air Park web site and described it as “highly selective and manipulated information”.  That is where we came across the different version of the piece that appeared in the Spectator.  Any detail of the  Justice Murray decision is hard to fond on the Air Park website.

Background links:

This battle has been going on since June of 2013

 

By Staff

April 22, 2014

BURLINGTON ON

 

We received the following recently.

Burlington Gazette

Burlington, Ontario

Dear Sirs:

 Re:     Burlington Airpark Inc. -Libel Notice to Burlington Gazette

 We are the solicitors for Burlington Airpark Inc., the operator of  the  Burlington  Executive Airport (collectively “Airport”). This letter is to serve as notice pursuant to s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act R.S .O. 1990 Chap. L.12.

Under    the    date    of    April     11,    2014    the     following     appeared     on    the    website https://www.burlingtongazette .ca/:

“Was it the cold winter that resulted in hundreds of dead fish floating on the pond of the Appleby Line property that is surrounded on three sides by the Air Park land fill or is the death of the fish the result of toxic and silt filled water now in the pond?

The argument  as to whether the land fill was going to do any real damage has been simmering in the background.   Some  testing was done but the

A spring fed pond with hundreds of fish – normally. Today wasn’t a normal day on the Appleby Line property.  Hundreds of dead fish were floating n the water this morning

Ministry of the Environment got involved in a struggle over who was entitled to the information from their testing results -privacy issues came into play and the privacy officers at every level  of government seem to be taking the time they feel they needed to determine just who can see what.

The spring fed pond is yards away from a mountain of landfill that was never properly tested when it was dumped on the property.

Runoff from the landfill is now getting to the water table -dead fish are showing up in the pond.

Some of the evidence may have come to the surface – literally, for one resident. Hundreds of dead fish were found floating on her pond this morning . That pond is yards away from a 30 foot high pile of landfill that is in place in violation of the city’s site alteration bylaw.

The property owner advises that the Ministry of the Environment will be on her property later today to test for contamination in the pond.”

These publications are false and misleading in at least the following respects:

1.         The soil was tested. Results to date in 2009 were reviewed by Region of Halton which reported to the City of Burlington: “The results for all criteria meet the Regional and Provincial standards (potable) as required in Table 2 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act.”

2.         The Airport is not contaminating the groundwater. Multiple tests  by  Environment Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (“MOE”) and  Halton  Region  have shown no impact on groundwater.

3.         When the City of Burlington reported the results of the Halton Region testing of wells on properties bordering the Airport in its Burlington Executive Airport Update #6- September 9, 2013: “On August 23, city staff were sent an email by the Region of Halton regarding testing of wells on several properties adjacent to the airport. The email indicated that the MOE and the Halton Region Health Department were working together to sample and analyze the drinking water wells of homes located immediately adjacent to where the fill was placed on the airport site. Well water samples were collected by MOE staff from two properties. The samples were being analyzed for inorganics, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons  and petroleum hydrocarbons.

Results of this testing were provided to the Health Department. The results were then compared to the health-based Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards and the Ministry of Environment Table 2 Brownfields standards. The Region has indicated that no exceedances were reported. These results have been shared with the property owners. Permission was given by these property owners for the Health Department to share the results with city staff.”

4.         These results were also discussed at the Burlington Development and Infrastructure Committee meeting on September 9, 2013 where it was reported: “On to Environmental matters on page 3 -the well testing. You can see the correspondence that’s come in from your CEO over at the Region of Halton.  That work is being done in co operation with the Health Unit.  That’s flowing through the good Doctor [Nosal], so the results will , continue; they have been shared with the property owners and the Health Department and we’ll get that information as it comes forward. Nothing negative at this stage and that is not unusual to see that there isn’t anything negative that would migrate from the site and be into any wells anyway, at this stage.”

 The publication was actuated by malice justifying an award of punitive or exemplary damages, in that you caused these words to be published knowing them to be untrue, or being reckless as to their truth.  In particular the Airport will rely on:

1.         The publication of an article dated April 9 2014 reporting on the filing of nomination papers by Vanessa Warren. The article, when fairly read, is an endorsement of her candidacy. The article repeats earlier defamatory claims that the Airport was importing “toxic landfill” and was running an “unlicensed landfill  operation”.  Both  these allegations are untrue. The July 16, 2013 article in which these claims were made is still available on the Burlington Gazette website, and the Airport claims with respect to these statements as well having been made less than one year prior to April 11, 2014.

2.         The Burlington Gazette reported on the testing of neighbouring wells on August 5, 2013. This report is also inaccurate in claiming that the Terrapex study established that any contaminants were migrating from the Airport property. Terrapex did not comment on off-site impacts as that was not part of the scope of work assigned to it by the City of Burlington. In addition, it bad not done any testing that would have been required to comment on off-site impacts. The August 5, 2013 article in which the false claim that the Terrapex report was evidence of off-site impacts by the Airport is still available on the Burlington Gazette website, and the Airport claims with respect to that statement as well, having been made less than one year prior to April 11, 2014.Nevertheless , as a result of the reports by the City as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, you knew or ought to have known that the tests of neighbouring wells showed no adverse impact due to the Airport and that the City of Burlington had advised the community that there wasn’t anything negative that would migrate from the site and be in any wells anyway. The failure to report these results was selective reporting intended to maintain the fiction  that  the Airport land was adversely impacting the neighbours, when the tests specifically performed to determine whether that was so were to the contrary.

Our instructions are to pursue legal proceedings unless the defamatory statements in the articles of April 11, 2014, July 16, 2013 and August 5, 2013 are retracted and a full and fair apology satisfactory to our clients is published in the same fashion and in an equally prominent way as the statements specified in this notice.

The notice was signed by Peter West, solicitor for Air Park Inc., carrying on business at the Burlington Executive Air Park.  The Air Park is currently in litigation with the city.  The cases were first heard at the Ontario Superior Court in Milton where Justice Murray found for the city.  The Air Park immediately filed an appeal that is to be heard in Toronto June 11, 2014

Background links:

April 14, 2014 article

July 15, 2013 article     July 16, 2013 article     August 5, 2013 article   April 11, 2014 article   Libel chill     Justice Murray decision