 By Staff
November 8th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
We now know what the City Solicitor told members of city council when they went into closed session yesterday afternoon.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered Burlington Airpark Inc. to pay City of Burlington court costs in the amount of $118,327.53.
 The Air Park corporation dumped tons of land fill on their property to level out the land and in the process earned thousands of dollars in fees collected for permitting the land fill on the property without an approved site plan, The black line indicates the boundary of the Air Park property. The cost award is related to the June 30, 2016 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in favour of the City of Burlington’s application to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with the city’s bylaw.
With the court ruling, the Airpark was required to file an application for a site alteration permit for the fill deposited between 2008 and 2013 before Aug. 31, 2016 and has now been ordered to pay the city’s court costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
 Heavy construction equipment parked on a 30 foot + hill 50 yards from the kitchen window of the Sheldon property on Appleby Line next door to the Air Park landfill operation. Many thought the overnight parking of the equipment overnight was intimidating An appeal by Burlington Airpark Inc. to the June 30, 2016 judgement in favour of the City of Burlington is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 28, 2017 at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West in Toronto.
The City of Burlington site alteration bylaw 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals doing this type of work must first submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
This is getting to be a very expensive experience for the Air Park and almost a profit center for the city. This is not the first time a Court has ordered the Air Park to pay the city very substantial costs.
 By Pepper Parr
October 23, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
Here we go again.
The Burlington Air Park appeal of a Superior Court decision handed down June 30, 2016 that found in favour of the City of Burlington is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal on March 28, 2017 at Osgoode Hall, in Toronto.
 Truck load after truck load was dumped on the air park property without site plan approval. What will the Appeal Court have to say and will that be the end of this story? On June 30, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the City of Burlington’s application to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with the city’s bylaw. With the court ruling, the Airpark was required to file an application for a site alteration permit for the fill deposited between 2008 and 2013 before Aug. 31, 2016 and was also ordered to pay the city’s court costs.
The Air Park has submitted a site plan that has yet to be approved.
 Dumped on the land illegally the neighbour wonders if the landfill will ever be removed. The City of Burlington site alteration bylaw 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals doing this type of work must first submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
By Staff
September 19, 2106
BURLINGTON, ON
The Gazette slipped a little on this one – the city issued a media release early in August; it took a little time to get caught up.
Here they go again – the Airpark has decided to appeal the Judgement handed down by Justice M. R, Gibson who, on June 30th sided with the city that asked the Court to compel the Airpark to comply with a city bylaw that required them to file a site plan.
The Airpark has dumped tonnes of landfill on the 200 acre air park property as part of a process to level out the land for future development.
The city had been battling this situation since 2013 when the Gazette first brought to city halls attention that trucks were rattling up and down Appleby Line with loads of landfill that was being spread on the property.
 Trucks loaded with land fill that no one really knew where it came from worked for months without any intervention from the city. A Gazette story put the issue on the front burner. At the time the Air Park argued that they came under federal jurisdiction and did not have to comply with municipal bylaws. That argument got shot down when Justice Murphy said that the Airpark did have to comply with city bylaws on those part of the Airpark that were not runway or taxiway features.
The Airpark appealed the Justice Murphy decision – that appeal lasted less than an hour – the Airpark appeal was dismissed and they were required to pay the city’s legal costs.
Heavy construction equipment parked on a 30 foot + hill 50 yards from the kitchen window of the Sheldon property on Appleby Line next door to the Air Park landfill operation. The next step was for the city to chase the Airpark to have them file a site plan. The Airpark hired consultants to prepare the document but they never did file what Justice Murphy and the Court of Appeal said they were required to file.
Many months later the court case asking the court to compel the Airpark to file took place in one of the smallest court rooms one can imagine. Members of the north Burlington community and just about the complete executive of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition, squeezed into the room where lawyer Ian Blue, acting for the city, marshalled all kinds of court decisions – most which, it appeared, counsel for the Airpark didn’t appear to know anything about.
Justice Gibson handed down a decision that wasn’t quite as clear cut as the Justice Murphy decision. It was complex.
That appears to have been enough for the Airpark to appeal that decision as well.
 This Regional government map shows what the plans were for the Airpark. The Region had bought into the Vince Rossi argument that the Airpark was federally regulated. The City of Burlington is now going to discuss next steps. We looking at another 18 to 24 months for a decision from the Appeal Court.
The appeal, asks that the Gibson judgment be set aside and judgment be granted declaring City of Burlington By-Law 64-2014 to be ultra vires, or inapplicable to the operations of the Appellant, Burlington Airpark Inc., and in particular to the placement of soils in and about aircraft runways and aircraft taxiways at the Burlington Airpark (the “Airpark”) prior to April 27, 2013.”
The City of Burlington site alteration bylaw 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals doing this type of work must first submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
 Vince Rossi, president of the Burlington Executive Airpark and believed to be the sole shareholder of the private company, met with north Burlington residents. He took all the comments made “under advisement”.. On June 30, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the City of Burlington’s application to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with the bylaw. With the court ruling, the Airpark was required to file an application for a site alteration permit for the fill deposited between 2008 and 2013 before Aug. 31, 2016. The court has also ordered the Airpark to pay the city’s court costs.
It is that decision that is now being appealed.
“The city will be looking at its options, and will update the community as soon as more information is available, “said Nancy Shea-Nicol, the city’s solicitor and director of Legal Services. No date has yet been set for the appeal.
A favourable Appeal Court decision is vital to the Airpark. Once all the appeal option are exhausted the air park is expected to have to file a site plan – and that is when their fate is in the hands of the planning department.
There was no love lost between the Airpark and the Planning department who feel they have been jerked around by the Airpark.
 Airpark dumped more than 30 feet of landfill without a Site Plan. Owner of the adjacent property stands on her property line and wonders why anyone can build a “small mountain” next to her property without getting approval. She is also terrified over what the hill is doing to the value of her property and what the leaching out of the landfill is going to do to her well water. One possibility is for the city to demand that some, if not all of the land fill – some of which is believed to be below the required standards – be removed.
That has the potential to put the Airpark out of business – at which point investors who are believed to be waiting in the wings will make an offer for the property.
By Pepper Parr
August 3rd, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
It will take place – right here in Burlington – a simulcast of the CBC broadcast of the last stop on the farewell tour of the Tragically Hip band; an event that is pregnant with the knowledge that Gord Downie, the band leader lives with an incurable brain cancer.
The Hip resonated with a certain demographic – they were our band and they spoke our language and we believed that like the Rolling stones they would go on forever.
 He is giving it everything he’s got – and then some! But it isn’t going to work out that way. The last song that is played on the simulcast will bring tears to the eyes of many – probably most.
While the tears might be part of a life experience, what is really necessary is a donation to the Canadian Cancer Society.
The Burlington Downtown Business Association, which has been a large part of the driving force behind getting the broadcast to Burlington, where it will be put up on huge screen in Spencer Smith Park, have set up an account at the Royal Bank of Canada Branch downtown at Lakeshore and Pearl.
It is a “deposit only” account; funds collected will be equally divided between JBH Foundation (in support of the Hospital’s cancer care clinic” and The Halton chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society (focusing on education and prevention).
 Gord Downie – The Tragically Hip The event is going to be bitter sweet – there will be a man on the stage suffering. The disease that is eating away at his brain is at this point in time incurable. Cancer treatment has come a long way in the past decade – basically because of the continuing ongoing research – which costs a lot of money.
You get a chance to put your money where your heart is going to be on August 20th. Just walk into the Royal Bank and make a donation. The account and transit number is set out below. Just do it.
Account # 100-427-4
Transit # 00622
The BDBA is working quickly to establish a tool for online donations as well. The Gazette will publish those details as soon as they are available.
By Pepper Parr
July 30th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The Airpark has served notice on the city that it is going to appeal the decision made in the Superior Court of Ontario which decided that they must file a site alteration plan for the air park where thousands of tonnes of land fill was dumped between 2003 and 2008.
And why are we not surprised?
This is what you do when you need to buy time.
The black lines show the size of the Air \Park property. The properties on the left side along Appleby Line suffered significant flooding from run off after the land fill had been dumped on Air Park property. The Air Park had 30 days in which to decide what they wanted to do – file a site alteration plan or appeal the decision.
They chose to appeal – and if this appeal is anything like the results of the last court decision the Air Park appealed it will be a very short court case.
After speaking for close to an hour on why the original decision should be set aside (that was the decision that said the air park did have to comply with municipal bylaws) the Court of Appeal decided they didn’t have to listen to the city’s argument. They recessed for a short period of time and chose not to set aside the Superior Court decision.
This second court case had the city of Burlington asking the court to compel the Air Park to file a site plan for the city to approve – and that of course is where the rubber hits the road – what if the city doesn’t approve the site plan that is filed?
The City will now discuss next steps after learning that the Burlington Airpark Inc. has appealed the decision of Mr. Justice M.R. Gibson dated June 30, 2016 to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
 Vince Rossi, president of the 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”. The appeal, attached, states:
“THE APPELLANT ASKS that the judgment be set aside and judgment be granted declaring City of Burlington By-Law 64-2014 to be ultra vires, or inapplicable to the operations of the Appellant, Burlington Airpark Inc., and in particular to the placement of soils in and about aircraft runways and aircraft taxiways at the Burlington Airpark (the “Airpark”) prior to April 27, 2013.”
The City of Burlington site alteration bylaw 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals doing this type of work must first submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
 The Air Park at one point had plans to locate a helicopter station on the property. On June 30, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the City of Burlington’s application to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with the bylaw. With the court ruling, the Air Park was required to file an application for a site alteration permit for the fill deposited between 2008 and 2013 before August 31, 2016.
The court has also ordered the Airpark to pay the city’s court costs.
The Air Park itself is not the issue – it is what the current owner of the air park has dumped on the land. They have argued that the land fill was brought in to level the property for future development.
Most people took the position that the land fill was brought in because it was very profitable to do so – and indeed it appears, with what little evidence there is so far that dumping land fill on the site was profitable.
During the first court case lawyer Ian Blue, acting for Burlington, managed to get on record that there were large sums earned from the land fill that was dumped, but that the corporate records were not available to show just where those millions of dollars had gone.
 All the key players in the Air Park dispute: On the left standing is assistant city solicitor Blake Hurley, seated in front of him is Ian Blue, the lawyer the has hired to represent them in court. Leaning over th chairs is former city general manager Scott Stewart along with Roger Goulet, Ken Woodfruff and Monte Denis. Leaning over th three gentlemen is former ward six candidate Vanessa Warren. At one point in these proceedings the Air Park sued three Burlington residents and a local on line newspaper (the Burlington Gazette) for libel. That case is still churning its way through the judicial system. The defendants, Denis, Warren, Parr and the Gazette have asked the Air Park to show their financial records. The Air Park has refused to do so. A Judge has heard arguments from the Air Park and the defendants on why the Air Park should make its financial records available. They are waiting for a decision.
There are people involved in economic development matters who feel the air park is an important part of what kind of development takes place on the 200 acre site. A small regional airport is seen by these people as a useful and there are reported to be people interested in acquiring the air park which is believed to be wholly owned by Vince Rossi.
There are others who feel the airport should become something owned and operated by the Region. However there does not appear to be much in the way of an appetite at the Region for them to become operators of an Air Park. There are a number of municipalities who have done just that.
Might the air park find itself with new owners? There is more than one individual interested in that possibility.
By Pepper Parr
July 6, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The decision rendered by Justice Gibson on the Air Park case is 50 pages in length. Lawyers read documents like this – I am not sure it is something we can expect of our readers.
The following is a condensed version on what the issues were and what Justice Gibson ruled.
The Gazette will publish a more detailed explanation of the decision as well as the complete document.
The issue is far from over but there is at least a sense of direction.
Justice J Gibson delivered his decision on the just what the Air Park was required to do regarding the submitting of a Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration plan to the city and the removal of the 2,000,000 tonnes of landfill on the 77.77 hectares property.
He was blunt and direct and differed on numerous occasions with the Air Park interpretation of laws that were sited.
 The fill does not have to be removed. At issue was an ongoing dispute between Airpark and the City with respect to fill operations conducted by Airpark at the Airport between January, 2008 and August 2013.
The Airpark, the Judge contended, allowed and profited from the deposit of over 500,000 m3 (approximately 2,000,000 tonnes) of fill at the Airport.
The city was seeking two orders:
a) a mandatory order requiring the respondent Burlington Airpark Inc. to remove all fill deposited on the site between January 1, 2008 and August 2, 2013 except for soil underlying existing runways and hangars;
b) in the alternative, a mandatory order requiring Airport to file an application under By-law 64-2014 for the 2008-2013 work carried out before By-law 64-2014 had been passed and while the prior By-law 6- 2003 was in effect (the latter by-law having been since repealed in its entirety);
c) an order continuing the terns of an order made by Miller J. on August 2, 2013 respecting the deposit of fill at the Airport;
d) costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The original argument made by the Air Park was that hangers were going to be built on areas that were built up – nothing has been built yet. Airpark, in contrast, sought an order dismissing the City’s application, Justice Gibson granted the city its application in part.
The Court Ordered that:
1. A mandatory order will issue requiring Airpark to file an application under By-Law 64-2014 for the 2008-2013 fill work carried out before By-Law 64-2014 had been passed, and while By-Law 6-2003 was in effect, by August 31, 2016; and,
2, The terms of the consent Order made by Miller J. on August 2, 2013 respecting the deposit of fill at the Airport will continue in effect.
What this amounts to is: The Air Park must file a site plan application but does not at this point have to remove any of the fill. The matter of contaminants in the fill and the impact they could have on the were left for another day.
 By Staff
July 4th, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The full decision was not on line when this report was published. The city however did get its side of the story out just after 10:30 this morning when they announced that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in favour of the City of Burlington’s application to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with site alteration bylaw.
 Vince Rossi, president of Burlington Executive Airpark Inc., at a meeting with members of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition that took place in a barn a couple of hundred yards from the end of his largest runway.  Thousands of tonnes of landfill were dumped on the air park property without a site plan approved by the city. With the court ruling, Burlington Airpark Inc is now required to file an application for a site alteration permit for the fill deposited between 2008-2013.
“The City of Burlington is delighted in the decision of the court,” said Nancy Shea-Nicol, the city’s director of legal services and city solicitor. “Staff will be meeting with Council to provide them the next steps going forward to address the site alteration issues. The decision gives the Air Park until August. 31, 2016 to file its application with the city for site alteration permit.
The Court has also ordered the Airpark to pay the city’s court costs.”
On Nov. 10, 2015, the City of Burlington’s application regarding Burlington Airpark Inc. was heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Milton. The application asked the court to compel Burlington Airpark Inc. to remove all fill deposited at Burlington Executive Airpark between Jan. 1, 2008 and Aug. 2, 2013, not including existing runways and hangars, in contravention of the city’s site alteration bylaw, or submit an application for a site alteration permit to comply with site alteration bylaw.
Airpark dumped more than 30 feet of landfill without a Site Plan. Owner of the adjacent property stands on her property line and wonders why anyone can build a “small mountain” next to her property without getting approval. She is also prettified about what the hill is doing to the value of her property and what the leaching out of the landfill is going to do to her well water. The Gazette will report on the decision when the complete document is available.
The Air Park does have the right to appeal the decision which they have done in the past. They have been as successful with their appeals as they have been with their court cases.
By Pepper Parr
April 28, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
It’s bold – its brassy and all part of the sales pitch.
Developers like to be able to say – xx% sold – and the closer that xx is to 70 – the better.
 $310,000 + will get you a splendid view of the Escarpment. Development projects have to be sold – and this latest move by Adi Development Group is certainly a sales pitch that catches the eye.
 Days before their application to the Ontario Municipal Board AdI Development announced that they had acquired the lot shown as 380 Martha – which changed significantly the size of the property they wanted to build on. Adi is currently in talks with the city’s planning department. In Burlington the objective is to get in on a property as early as you can – and this pitch makes it a little easier. They are offering units on the north side of their proposed 26 storey tower at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road.
The following is an electronic message forwarded to us by a regular reader:
New prices just announced for escarpment facing suites at Nautique Lakefront Residences Downtown Burlington!
Prices start as low as $309,990 (1 parking space included).
The suites at Nautique Lakefront Residences have been designed by award-winning Cecconi Simone and feature open-concept layouts to maximize living space. Contemporary European custom-designed kitchen featuring corian countertop and backsplash with five-piece euro-style appliance package along with in-suite white stacked washer and dryer. Spacious lakeview terraces & balconies.
The building features two floors of amenities space with a 6th floor outdoor terrace and 18th floor sky lounge overlooking the lake. Outdoor swimming pool, whirlpool, bbq’s, party room, dining room, library, private lounge, fitness centre, indoor/outdoor yoga studio & more.
Don’t miss this fantastic opportunity to invest! Inventory won’t last long!
SPECIAL EXTENDED DEPOSIT STRUCTURE
$5,000 on Signing
Balance of 5% in 30 Days
5% in 120 Days
5% in 370 Days
5% in 540 Days
PARKING: 1 Parking Spot Included In The Purchase Price
OCCUPANCY: November 2018
Give Noman Khan, Broker, Loyalty Real Estate, Brokerage
905.330.4077 – vipcondosales@gmail.com
Some questions arise out of this announcement. Does the 18th floor sky lounge overlooking the lake suggest that the building will top off at 18 stories?
 Adi is aggressively marketing the condominiums on the north (Escarpment side) of the building. Adi is currently in talks with the Burlington Planning department to see if they can come to terms on a site configuration that will get them past one of the tougher OMB Board members who has given then some time to see what the city thinks of the addition of an additional piece of land that adds significantly to the size of the footprint they have to work with.
The city’s planners never say a word about how development talks are going – it will be Adi that does all the talking – and this most recent release, which they sent out to selected people, suggests they have run something by the planners and think they might have some buy in.
 A portion of the property that Adi Development group wants to put a 26 storey condominium on – he size of the foot print they want to build on has been revised After the decision the OMB handed down on the appeal Councillor Jack Dennison made to the Board to reverse the decision made by the Burlington Committee of Adjustment that opposed his request to sever his Lakeshore Road property. Many in Burlington shuddered at that decision and wonder what the city’s chances are going to be with the Adi situation is that before them.
We know nothing about the OMB member who heard the Dennison appeal – but we can tell you that Susan Schiller who is hearing the Adi application is not going to be an easy one for anyone.
Susan Schiller heard the application Nelson Quarry made for a permit to expand the quarry they were mining in rural Burlington. The application was denied.
Watch this one carefully. Asking for a different OMB member to hear the ADI application is something that can be expected: such an application would be about a “perceived bias” on the part of the member.
Business is business and you do what you have to do.
By Staff
April 7, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
If you have at some point felt your financial planner was not really delivering the level of service you thought you deserved for the fees you are paying – the province wouldlike to hear from you.
 This isn’t the experience for everyone who engages a financial advisor – the province wants to hear about your experience. Ontario is seeking public feedback on recommendations to help consumers access quality, professional financial planning and advice.
The Expert Committee to consider Financial Advisory and Financial Planning Policy Alternatives has issued a report outlining preliminary recommendations, including:
Regulating individuals who serve as financial planners and advisors
Harmonizing industry education, credentialing, licensing and titling standards
Establishing clear rules to protect consumers and mitigate the risk of conflict of interest
Starting today, Ontarians can provide feedback on the expert committee’s recommendations by:
Submitting comments online to
Fin.Adv.Pln@ontario.ca
by June 17
 Or attending one of the public town hall meetings being held across the province
The committee will use the feedback to finalize its recommendations to government, which are expected this fall.
The financial services sector, including financial planning and advising, is critical to Ontario’s economic prosperity. In 2015, the sector accounted for 390,000 jobs across the province, generating almost 10 per cent of Ontario’s GDP.
The Expert Committee to Consider Financial Advisory and Financial Planning Policy Alternatives was established in 2015. The final report by an expert advisory panel reviewing the mandates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, the Financial Services Tribunal and the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario with the goal of modernizing the regulation of financial services and pension plans and increasing agency accountability, is due to be released this spring.
By Staff
March 16, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
One never knows what is going to appear in the mail box.
The following was passed along to us – interesting.
March 11, 2016
Fax: 416-314-8452
Application Assessment Officer
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Operations Division
Environmental Approvals Access &
Service Integration Branch Application Verification Unit
135 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 1 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1P5
E-mail: tina.dufresne@ontario.ca Ms. Tina Dufresne, District Manager
Halton-Peel District Office, Central Region
4145 North Service Road, Suite 300 Burlington, Ontario L7L 6A3
Dear Sir/Madam:
Subject: EBR Registry Number: 012-6693
Ministry Reference Number: 1720-A59NX4 Proponent: 2120901 Ontario Limited
Instrument Type: Environmental Compliance Approval – EPA Part 11.1-sewage
Location: 5432 Bell School Line, Burlington, Ontario
I am writing on behalf of the of the Corporation of the City of Burlington, in response to an application for a new Environmental Compliance Approval for 2120901 Ontario Limited posted to the EBR on February 4, 2016. For the reasons that follow, the City of Burlington is requesting that the application be returned to the proponent as incomplete for the reasons as will be set out below. In the alternative, the City is requesting that the time for the submission of comments be extended for an additional 60 days beyond the current deadline of March 20, 2016 to permit adequate time for consideration of the issues by Burlington City Council, and affected residents.
Background
The City of Burlington and the Burlington Airpark Inc. have been engaged in litigation for several years arising from an illegal fill operation taking place at the Burlington Airpark. The sewage works that are the subject of the application before you drain water from the landfill at the airport that is the subject of the litigation between the City and Airpark. The Airpark is located between Appleby Line and Bell School line, north of Highway 407, all of which is located in the northern rural area of Burlington.
 It was the dumping of landfill that resulted in neighbours calling the Gazette – we published the first stories on the problem which woke up people at city hall who began to look into the problem. A fill operation on the Airpark property commenced in late 2007. The City of Burlington was never consulted about the fill operation or about any proposed expansion plans that the Airpark might have with respect to its operations. On or about March 2013, the City began receiving a significant number of complaints from new landowners in the vicinity of the Airpark. The nature of the complaints ranged from grading activities, drainage, noise, dust, traffic safety and about the possible effects of contaminants in the fill on drinking water. After having investigated these complaints, staff concluded that the Airpark was using its lands as a fill site in order to generate revenue and was not depositing fill to implement a planned and/or imminent expansion of its airport facilities.
As a result of its investigations, on May 3, 2013 the City issued an Order to Comply pursuant to its site alteration by-law by obtaining a permit for the ongoing fill operation. After the Airpark failed to comply, the City issued a Violation Notice under its by-law. Since that time, the City has been engaged in protracted litigation with the Airpark to bring the Airpark into compliance with the City’s by laws to address the off-site impacts caused by its fill operation.
Litigation Round 1
The Airpark brought a court application in July 2013 to prohibit the City from enforcing its Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law against the Airpark and the Airport. The City responded with a counter application seeking a declaration that the City’s Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law 6-2003 was valid and binding upon the Airpark and to its fill activities.
In November 2013, the court dismissed Airpark’s application against the City and declared that the City’s Topsoil and Site Alteration By-law was valid and binding upon it. The Airpark subsequently appealed the decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on June 13, 2014.
Following the decision of the Court of Appeal, the City continued to press the Airpark to comply with the Order to Comply under the City’s Site Alteration By-law. The City adopted a new Site Alteration By-law #64-2014 which contained materially the same provisions found in the previous by-law. The City maintained that the Order remained outstanding and it continued to be entitled to enforce it. The Airpark subsequently did file an application, however maintained that it was in relation only to a small area at the north-west corner of the Airport. This position
ignores all of the fill unlawfully deposited at the Airpark between January 1, 2008 and August 2, 2013.
litigation Round 2
The City commenced an application to the court in April, 2015 seeking an order to remove all fill deposited on site between 2008 and 2013. In the alternative, the City seeks to have the court order the Airpark to submit a complete application for a site alteration permit pursuant to the new City’s site alteration by-law. The application was heard by the court on November 10, 2015 and at the time of preparing this letter, the court has not released its decision.
Nature of Burlington’s Interest
The City of Burlington has a clear and compelling interest in the application for Environmental Compliance Approval that has been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and posted on the EBR. As demonstrated above, the City has been engaged in a protracted dispute with the Airpark to regulate the fill that was brought onto the site illegally in order to address the environmental impacts resulting from those actions. In particular, the City is concerned with the grading of the property, and the impacts on the drainage of the lands, all of which are related to the proposed sewage works identified in the current application for compliance.
 Councillor Blair Lancaster walking through the property of a farm adjacent to the air port found the land spongy and soaked with water – now we know where that water is coming from. Prior to 2008, which was the start of the fill operations, the Airpark had a storm sewer drainage system that was located generally in the vicinity of the North South runway and the airpark buildings. These storm sewers discharged into the existing pond at the SE corner of the property and into the adjacent farm fields.
With the start of the fill operations, additional storm sewers were installed in the areas of fill. These storm sewers discharge into a regulated watercourse and also at several locations along the west property line. This has resulted in changes to the stormwater discharge regime onto adjacent properties. The change has been from the previous “sheet flow discharge” to “concentrated flow discharge”. As a result, adjacent properties have been adversely impacted, as identified above in the form of complaints received by the City.
The City agrees that the MOECC Environmental Compliance Approvals were required for these storm sewer systems. In addition, Conservation Authority permits should have been applied for. It is the City’s position that detailed storm sewer and stormwater design calculations should be provided for these systems. The application does not include adequate information in this regard.
Irregularities with the Present Application
City staff has had the opportunity to attend at the Halton-Peel District Office to view the materials filed by the proponent. The City submits that the application as filed contains a number of irregularities that merit the rejection of the present application on the basis of incompleteness.
Name of Proponent
 The ownership of the Air Park and the taxes they actually pay are now being questioned. The name of the proponent making application for environmental compliance approval is 212091 Ontario Limited. The Certificate of Incorporation and the Articles of Incorporation attached to the application for that numbered company date back to 2006. Our recent corporate search of this company discloses that the numbered company was in fact amalgamated with the Burlington Airpark Inc. on January 1, 2007, forming a new company, Burlington Airpark Inc. being Ontario Corp. Number 1721779. Burlington takes the position that the application has been made by a defunct corporation which cannot have legal responsibility for the proposed works to which the application relates. The documents submitted in support of the applicant’s name are neither current, nor do they provide proof of the name of a genuine applicant. Furthermore, the documents submitted do not include copies of the subsequent articles of amalgamation.
Burlington submits that the proponent’s name as posted on the EBR is misleading, and a reasonable person having an interest in postings on the EBR respecting the Burlington Airpark Inc. would not have adequate notice of the application as posted in its current form.
Location(s) Related to this Instrument
The posting to the Environmental Registry identify the relevant address as 5432 Bell School Line, Burlington. Our information is that the actual address for the site is 5342 Bell School Line, in the City of Burlington. Again, any reasonable person having an interest in activities related to the Airpark would not have adequate notice that an application had been made for those lands. Also, 5342 Bell School Line is only one of three land parcels forming the Airpark lands.
Statement of the Municipality (s. 5.1)
The City notes that section 1.5 of the Application – Statement of the Municipality has been left blank. The Municipality has to indicate that it has no objection to the construction of the works in the municipality. I can assure you, that the City of Burlington, where the works are located has not been contacted and has not been consulted. Furthermore, the box has not been checked as “NA”.
Our understanding is that a municipal declaration is required from the municipality in which the sewage works are or will be located. The Ministry’s own “Guide to Applying for an Environmental Compliance Approval”, identifies that this declaration, “is required to establish the municipality’s general concurrence with the proposal, to ensure that the proposed works would not contravene any municipal by-laws or other requirements.” Also, the common law requires that the City be consulted in these circumstances.
Based on the background provided in this correspondence, the City of Burlington has very serious concerns about the sewage works identified in the application, and the municipality ought to have been consulted prior to the application having been made. The City takes the position that the installation of sewage works was done concurrent with the illegal infill operation that was occurring at the site, in contravention of the City’s site alteration by-laws.
Burlington’s Request
 Barbara Sheldon look at 32 feet of landfill less than 50 feet from her kitchen window. All dumped without any permits because an airport maintained they were federally regulated and did not have to comply with city bylaws. The City of Burlington is requesting that the application be returned to the proponent as incomplete for the reasons as presented. The application contains incomplete and inaccurate information, and has the effect of misleading any person with an interest in tracking environmental activity on the EBR. The proponent ought to correct the application, and ensure that discussions are held with the relevant municipal authorities, including the City of Burlington and Conservation Halton before an application for environmental compliance is re submitted.
In the alternative, the City is requesting that the time for the submission of comments be extended for an additional 60 days beyond the current deadline of March 20, 2016 to permit adequate time for consideration of the issues by Burlington City Council, and affected residents.
Please note that these submissions are preliminary and deal only with the adequacy of the application and process followed to date. Should the application continue to be processed for approval, the City will submit its technical comments on the application for environmental approval.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Nancy L. Shea Nicol
City Solicitor & Director of Legal Services cc. Mr. Ian Blue, Gardiner
This is the kind of document that would get circulated to council members and discussed in a closed session of council. Our thanks to the citizen who had the courage to pass it along to the Gazette.
By Pepper Parr
March 14, 2016
BURLINGTON, ON
The fat is in the fire and there are deadlines out there that will be hard for some of the parties to the ADI Development Group Ontario Municipal Board appeal hearing to meet.
The Chair of the appeal to the OMB that ADI made is one Susan Schiller. Ms Schiller was one of the Commissioners who heard the Nelson Quarry appeal for an expansion to their quarry in North Burlington a few years ago. That Joint Tribunal found in the city’s favour. That decision was based on the habitat of the Jefferson Salamander – see the link to that story below. Ms Schiller is a no-nonsense chair – expect her to keep counsel on their toes.
The opening of the OMB hearing was in some doubt when Burlington city council announced on Thursday their would be a special council meeting on Tuesday at 1:30 pm to hear a legal update on the ADI appeal. The city said nothing other than it was related to a property at 374 Martha Street – which is the address of ADI’s 26 story Nautique development.
 The eastern end of the site ADI wants to put a 26 storey condominium on and the bungalow to the north of the property at the Martha Street and Lakeshore Road intersection. That was all we knew on Friday. At the hearing this morning we learned that ADI had purchased the small bungalow tucked in behind the property ADI had assembled for the Nautique project.
And here is where the differing interests come into play.
The ADI development group purchased the property at 380 Martha Street and has asked for a delay of their OMB appeal while they work with the city to figure out how to integrate the property into the original development. Some argue that the purchase of the property makes the development a whole new ball game. ADI wanted the hearing delayed until the fall while they worked out how they would fit the newly acquired piece of property into the larger development. The lawyer for the city said he couldn’t agree or disagree with the ADI request until he had directions from his client – the city of Burlington. The meeting at which the city will work out its position is to take place on Tuesday at 1:30 pm
 Can this council make a critical decision in the 120 minutes they were given by an OMB commissioner? Don’t bet the mortgage on it. Chair Schiller said she was fine with adjourning the Monday meeting until Wednesday morning but she needed a decision no later than 3:30 pm on Tuesday.
It will take someone with a big magic wand for that to happen. The city has 120 minutes to arrive at a decision – with seven council members they each get 17 minutes – that won’t happen. Add in the staff comments; the comments from the lawyers and there goes that deadline.
The decision the city has to make is – are they willing to go along with the ADI request for an adjournment until the fall?
The complications get thicker.
There are those who want to argue that the Chair of the OMB hearing should throw the appeal out right now because the addition of a piece of property to what is an appeal means that this is in reality a whole new development.
ADI appealed because they weren’t happy with the city’s inability to approve or disapprove of the application within the 180 days required under the planning act and wanted to the OMB to make the decision.
The addition of that piece of small bungalow at the north end of the property means this is really a new development.
Has the ADI Nautique development reached the point where it has entered that “will never see the light of day” zone? What ADI will argue is that the chair does not have the jurisdiction to refuse to go forward with the appeal application. The city and the owners of a condominium across the street from the bungalow (Sun Life Insurance) will argue that the Chair cannot hear the ADI appeal because the project has had a substantial change made to it.
Patrick Devine, the lawyer representing the Sun Life interests argued that a new project proposal should be submitted by ADI to be followed by the requisite public meetings and a review by the planning department.
He also complained about the short notice he was given by the ADI lawyers on their decision to buy the bungalow – which is reported to have been owned by Nick Carnicelli, the developer behind the Berkeley project on Caroline and John Street that is getting closer to putting a shovel in the ground. Carnicelli also has other property holdings in the block bounded by Martha, Pearl and Lakeshore. A number of years ago Carnicelli bought the Pearl Street Café and a critical strip of property in behind those two buildings.
It is all a bit of a mess – there are pretty good grounds for throwing the ADI appeal application out; that argument will be something to watch.
ADI seemed to be suggesting that with the acquisition of the really small bungalow many of the objections the city had to the development could be worked out. The current zoning for the property ADI wants to build on is for 8 storeys – how a small bungalow is going to impact the 26 storeys ADI wants to put up is going to be an interesting legal argument.
Would it be reasonable to come to the conclusion that the ADI decision to purchase the bungalow at this late date is pretty close to “flying by the seat of your pants” decision making.
For those who have made deposits on units in the proposed development – it’s going to be a while before you can move in.
Chair Schiller advised the meeting this morning that if the hearing is adjourned – there is no room on the calendar for a resumed hearing until sometime in the 1Q of 2017.
 By Vince Fiorito
November 9, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Alien invaders surround us. They can be found along roadsides. They are common in lakes and rivers. Eventually they will completely over run all natural areas and green spaces.
The alien invaders aren’t people. They are plants, insects, fish, birds, animals and all the non-native species which never existed in a place until they were deliberately or accidentally introduced by people. While some of these alien species are benign, far too many have become invasive and destructive.
Invasive species are a global menace with significant, far-reaching environmental and socio-economic consequences including loss of agricultural productivity and damage to renewable natural resource industries (forestry). Invasive species have caused entire ecosystems to become dysfunctional.
 Emerald Ash Bore – This little creature is costing us a fortune – and we are not at all certain we are going to win the battle to stop the infestation.  The Zebra Mussel completely changes a fresh water ecosystem. Hundreds of alien species are currently present in Ontario. Some of the more well know alien invaders include the Zebra Mussel (completely changes a fresh water ecosystem), Emerald Ash Borer (kills native Ash trees) Dutch Elm Disease (nearly wiped out the American Elm) Sea Lampreys (decimated the Great Lakes Trout fishery) and Starlings (crowd out native bird species and cause millions of dollars in agriculture losses each year).
 Lovely to look at – as invasive as all get out – Purple loosestrife Scientists are fighting back against invasive species, with some successes. Purple Loosestrife (destroyed wetlands) is now controlled by an introduced beetle at the cost of millions of dollars in research. Their decision to release the loosestrife eating beetle was gutsy, considering that a similar effort in Australia to eradicate the invasive Cane Beetle by introducing the Cane Toad was an ecological disaster. While the Cane Toad did eat the Cane beetle, it also ate everything else it could swallow.
Since the Cane Toad had no natural predators in Australia it soon became one of Australia’s most dominant species. The Cane Toad has caused many of Australia’s native insects to become so rare, they no longer contribute in a significant way to the local ecology, with ripple effects on many of Australia’s native plants and animals which have since become rare and threatened with extinction.
The least expensive solutions to the invasive species problems are to prevent problems in the first place and reacting quickly, aggressively and decisively to the first sign of a new invasive species problem.
On November 3rd, 2015, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in Canada to enact a tough law which will reduce the invasive species threat. As per the new Ontario Invasive Species Act, no person shall,
bring a member of a prohibited invasive species into Ontario or cause it to be brought into Ontario;
deposit or release a member of a prohibited invasive species or cause it to be deposited or released;
possess or transport a member of a prohibited invasive species;
propagate a member of a prohibited invasive species;
buy, sell, lease or trade or offer to buy, sell, lease or trade a member of a prohibited invasive species.
bring a member of a restricted invasive species into a provincial park or conservation reserve or cause it to be brought into a provincial park or conservationreserve;
or
deposit or release a member of a restricted invasive species in Ontario or cause it to be deposited or released in Ontario.
First time offenses can result in a $250,000 fine and/or a year of imprisonment. A second offense could cost $500,000. If that sounds excessive, consider that first time corporate offenders could face a $1,000,000 fine with subsequent offenses resulting in fines as great as $2,000,000.
Even though this law’s punitive sanctions don’t fully offset the damages which can result from invasions species, they should sufficient to deter deliberately destructive behavior.
 Snow-On-The-Mountain (aka Goutweed) is a robust ground cover that will eventually become Ontario’s most dominant forest plant. Ontario’s new Invasive Species law will affect many local nurseries and gardeners. Several common ornamental plants which have been sold in local nurseries for decades are known invasive species problems. Snow-On-The-Mountain (aka Goutweed) is a robust ground cover that will eventually become Ontario’s most dominant forest plant. Goutweed will displace most of Ontario’s native forest species, including Trilliums which are our provincial flower. Goutweed is a likely early candidate for the invasive species list.
Another problematic invasive ornamental plant is Mountain Fleece (aka Japanese Knotweed). The roots of this tenacious alien species can destroy driveways and cause structural to buidings. Once established, Japanese Knotweed is nearly impossible to permanently eradicate. Eventually this plant will replace most native plant species growing along Ontario’s shorelines.
Both Goutweed and Japanese Knotweed have escaped cultivation locally. They are commonly found throughout Burlington’s green spaces along with invasive Himalayan Balsam, Garlic Mustard, Phragmites and Buckthorn.
These invasive species are not just serious ecological problems here in Ontario; they are also serious global ecological problems which affect natural areas near London England, Sapporo Japan, Christchurch New Zealand, Pretoria South Africa and every other ecosystem on the earth which shares similar climate and conditions as Burlington. Deliberately cultivating this species in the UK is illegal and can result in substantial fines.
 Japanese knotweed – seen all over the place in Burlington. Fiorito believes that once established, Japanese Knotweed is nearly impossible to permanently eradicate. The mere presence of Japanese Knotweed in a neighborhood lowers everyone’s property values. British Real Estate law now requires home sellers declare the presence of Japanese Knotweed on their property. If this plant is subsequently discovered on that property, then the buyer can sue the seller for eradication costs.
In Burlington, Japanese Knotweed is available at many local nurseries. Many local gardeners have unwittingly created problems that will be expensive to fix, when Japanese Knotweed is inevitably put on the invasive species list.
The easiest way that gardeners can avoid creating invasive species problem around their homes is to choose plant species which are native to the local ecosystem. Each spring the Royal Botanical Gardens holds an annual native plant sale. Most nurseries now have a native plant section. Several local nurseries and landscape designers have become native plant specialists. This new invasive species law will help forward looking local businesses grow and prosper.
We can no longer ignore the destructive consequences of invasive alien species anymore. Failure to consider the ecological consequences of introducing an invasive alien species will become expensive in the not so distant future. This new law will help change attitudes leading Ontarians to becoming better stewards of the natural systems which rejuvenate our soils and clean our air and water. Ontario’s new invasive species law represents real change and will help protect Ontario from the growing international invasive species threat.
 Vince Fiorito is the steward of Sheldon Creek; a designation given him by Conservation Halton. He was recently a candidate for the Green Party and is an extremely knowledgeable person when it comes to what we are doing to our environment. Don’t get him going.
By Pepper Parr
September 17, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Tom Muir, an Aldershot resident known for his persistent questions at city council meetings and what his council member might call ongoing badgering.
Muir is one of those guys that wants to look at the details – for he knows the devil is always in those details.
He currently wants to know why the city did not have a position on the application the ADI Development Group had made for Official Plan and zoning changes to the property at the south north corner of Lakeshore Road and Martha Street.
City council did debate the application at a Standing Committee and Staff put forward an excellent report which set out what the Planning department thought. During the debates at the Standing Committee it was pretty clear that no one at city council was on for this project and most of the hands went up saying this isn’t for us – but those votes are not recorded and have no standing.
 Not on single member of city council was for the ADI development – but they never got to vote officially against the project. some either forgot to count the number of days before ADI could go to the OMB or there was plain rank incompetence somewhere. It is the votes at city council that matter – and there was never a vote by city council because – wait for it – the 180 day period had ended the day before city council was to meet – and the ADI Development Group had taken their application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) arguing that the city had failed to make a decision on their application within the 180 day deadline.
“I would like an explanation” asked Muir “of how the staff report on this project did not make it to Council within the 180 days mandated in the legislation.” The fact is the planning staff did get their report to city council and it was debated at Standing Committee. The other fact is that the Mayor either couldn’t count out 180 days or didn’t think it mattered all that much.
 It is a very large building – the highest ever proposed for this city and is on a very small lot. The city planners recommended it not be approved – a Standing Committee agreed – but city council never got to officially vote no on the project. There was more than enough evidence to indicate how ADI was going to behave – they had already taken the city to the OMB on a different development.
Muir is quite right however – there has never been a word from the office of the Mayor on the ADI development – there was a discussion at Standing Committee earlier in the week on a confidential matter related to the Lakeshore Road development.
Muir calls this a “a failure of transparency and accountability” – the failure is in the city not realizing the kind of developer they were up against. ADI knew what the rules were and he played by them.
The city did not have a scheduled council meeting and didn’t see any reason, apparently, to suggest to the Mayor that he call a special council meeting – he has the authority to do that.
 The city has a major beef with this sign – don’t think it is legal. The failure is that the city council apparently did not see this coming – when they should have. The Director of Planning should have had a meeting with the Mayor to advise him of the seriousness of a delay and then followed that up with a memo to cover his butt.
The Mayor should have seen this one coming.
The ADI development was on the agenda the evening council met to vote officially on the proposal. When city staff got word that ADI had taken their application to the OMB council was no longer permitted to discuss the issue – it was now in the hands of an OMB Commissioner.
Muir wants to “know the line of responsibility for this failure”. Look to the planning department, the city’s Solicitor and the office of the Mayor.
 The ADI Development Group is converting a lower Brant retail location into a sales office for their Nautique project – as yet approved – for the corner of LAkeshore Road and Martha Should ADI prevail at the OMB hearing, and there are a number of reasons to believe they will, the city will pay a high price in terms of the way they want to develop their downtown core.
There are better ways to run a city. The first hearing of the ADI application to the OMB is scheduled for March of next year.
Meanwhile ADI has opened up a sales office on Brant Street. They have redone the outside of the building and appear to be putting up a high end sales office. Many people are asking how they can do this when the project has yet to be approved by anyone. Good question. ADI can open an office to sell whatever he wishes – what he will be doing is taking registrations and perhaps a deposit from people who think they would like to purchase a unit.
 ADI redid the front of the sales office location with stucco giving it a softer look. The detailing on the inside is very polished and sophisticated. There will be a lot of muscle behind their sales and marketing program. Their advertisements are already seen on web site with a considerable amount of newspaper advertising as well The ADI people don’t do very much without the advice of their legal counsel – and they have retained a very competent firm, Weir & Foulds, to represent them. Expensive – but they are tough guys to beat.
 By Pepper Parr
September 9, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
This popped up in my email box – can you imagine a bank asking you what you thought of a change they were making .
That never happens – which was the first clue that the email was the first step in an attempt to get into my identity and rummage around my bank account to see if there was something they could steal.
I’ve not had an account with the CIBC for at least ten years – so there is nothing to learn about me there.
Somewhere along the way someone who makes their living taking what isn’t theirs from people
If you see this one – click on delete, quickly.
The cheek!
Changes to the Electronic Access Agreement
We’ve changed the Electronic Access Agreement.
We wanted to check it’s OK with you.
The following is a summary of the changes made to the Agreement effective as of August 1, 2015
Part I “Terms and Conditions for CIBC eDeposit” is new and applies to your use of the new CIBC eDeposit feature within CIBC Mobile Banking.
Part K was amended to add new definitions to explain the meaning of the following terms: “CIBC eDeposit” and “Images”.
Section 56 “Exclusive Jurisdiction” was removed.
Section 70 “Governing Law” was amended to clarify its meaning and add new information.
What do I have to do?
If You agree with the changes we’ve made, please click on the link below:
https://www.cibc.com/ca/agreement-2015-confirm.aspx
You must use your Bank Card and Password to access Online Banking. You may also be required to answer your Personal Verification Questions when accessing Online Banking.
If you do not agree to a change in this Agreement, you must immediately stop using Online Banking
 By Staff
July 3, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
On June 15, 2015, the owners of a Tim Hortons franchise in the City of Burlington learned there was a lot of money that didn’t make it to the bank. The police describe the situation this way: “extensive amount of deposits remained outstanding” as the the company attempted to complete the year-end financial statements.
The calculated loss from these outstanding balances between January 2014 until May 2015 was just over $200,000.00.
 There was a big hole in the deposit donut at a Tim Hortons franchise in Burlington An employee, responsible for the Tim Hortons bank deposits was identified and the owners reported the theft to Halton Police on June 29, 2015.
On June 30, 2015, the accused was arrested.
Accused:
Mariel ABEJERO, 42 years, from Hamilton has been charged with:
Theft Over $5000
The accused is schedule to attend court on July 29, 2015.
 By Pepper Parr
May 25, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
City hall kept getting the feeling that they were being jerked around by the owners of the Air Park on Appleby Line where tonnes of landfill, much of it from sources unknown, had been illegally dumped putting significant sums into the coffers of the Air Park.
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”.. It took a court case to determine that the city had some regulatory authority over the air park and the winning of an appeal to drive that point home.
The city then asked the Air Park to submit a site plan for the work they had been doing on the property.
The Burlington Executive Airpark was given 30 days, from March 20, 2015, to comply with the city’s site alteration bylaw 64-2014 after months of discussion between officials at the city and the Airpark failed to produce the required application.
The City of Burlington site alteration bylaw 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals undertaking this type of work are first required to submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
 Trucks dumping fill on air park property. The Burlington Airpark Inc. has not submitted an application for a site alteration permit for the entire area of the Airpark property where substantial quantities of fill were deposited between 2008 and 2014.
The hearing that was to take place on the 28th was to have a judge compel the Air Park to file the site plan.
On May 21, last Thursday, the Ontario Court of Justice heard a motion from Burlington Airpark Inc. to remove paragraphs from a City of Burlington affidavit supporting the city’s application. Burlington Airpark Inc. argued these paragraphs contain an improper reference to “without prejudice” discussions between the city and the Airpark.
The Ontario Court of Justice granted the motion to remove the paragraphs from the affidavit and awarded Burlington Airpark Inc. $3,500 in costs to be paid by the city.
The court date to hear the city’s application regarding Burlington Airpark Inc. was rescheduled from May 28, 2015, to Nov. 10, 2015, before a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
 Burlington Air Park with two runways. The November date is the earliest the Court has sufficient time to hear the city’s application and a Notice of Constitutional Question filed by Burlington Airpark Inc.
The notice challenges the constitutional validity of the city’s site alteration bylaw 64-2014.
Most people thought that question had been answered by the Ontario Court of Appeal – this matter is going to go around and around – the Air Park wants – perhaps needs, to buy some time. Drug dealers and other criminals do that kind of thing all the time.
Hearings for discovery of the tree people being sued by the Air Park for saying things President Vince Rossi didn’t like are to take place in June.
Wonder how they should go about getting a delay – is there a constitutional remedy for them ?
 By Ray Rivers
April 25, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
Last week Canada’s premiers met to brag about each other’s achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Alberta, whose increases negated everyone else’s reductions, was absent, presumably busy with a provincial election. Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall argued for business as usual, since our greenhouse gas contributions amount to a small fraction of the global total, thereby challenging Ontario’s Premier Wynne on her government’s successes.
 Climate change is real – except to those who wrote the last federal budget document. And Mr. Harper’s government with an historic legacy of denying climate change and otherwise doing squat, blamed the provinces for Canada’s crappy performance. With that outburst from the federal environment minister, and given an impending federal budget, even a pessimist might have expected something, even anything, about climate change action in the budget. Sorry pessimists!
When international oil prices tumbled, along with federal income projections, finance minister Joe Oliver panicked, delayed the budget and dumped Canada’s GM shares (bought to save GM in 2008) for a whacking loss of over $3 billion. Next, he robbed the government’s piggy bank, its fiscal reserve for as much as $2 billion, and then pulled some sleight-of-hand around future employee contract negotiations to manufacture a small surplus.
Canada’s economy is heading into recession, led by the faltering Alberta economy. So one would have expected some new measures to stimulate the economy. But there is scant discussion of economic drivers in Joe Oliver’s master plan, unless one considers new corporate tax cuts, or re-announcing the tired old federal training, innovation and infrastructure initiatives.
This budget is arguably the most ideological document to come out of Mr. Harper’s decade of governance, notably excepting Bill C-38, also called the environmental destruction act. It is a common belief among the extreme right-wing that government, itself, is the problem and smaller government is always better government. One wonders why people who believe that government is so insignificant try so hard to get elected into office.
 Harper needs the votes of the greatest democrats in the nation – the people who always turn out on voting day – the seniors. This federal budget is about buying votes in the upcoming election. Mr. Harper’s promised tax break for the highest income Canadian families through income sharing is now formalized. But to win his next election, Harper needs the votes of the greatest democrats in the nation – the people who always turn out on voting day – the seniors.
It was only a couple of years ago that Mr. Harper denied seniors their Old Age Security by raising the retirement age to 67. And by blocking provincial demands to upgrade the Canada Pension Plan he angered seniors groups. So, to make amends, he is upping the contribution limit for TFSAs (interest tax-free savings accounts) to a whopping $10,000. And the well-heeled will no doubt be appreciative.
There was another budget announced this week. Though unlike the feds, Ontario hasn’t yet balanced its budget. Ontario’s finance minister, Charles Sousa, is privatizing electricity generation, going back to the future and completing the job even Mike Harris and Ernie Eves couldn’t get done. The money from this dis-investment will be allocated to infrastructure and building transit and roads for the GTA, in particular.
The Province is finally allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, albeit with some antediluvian rules to discourage customers. And there is good reason for that since expanded provincial beer consumption might, inadvertently, put a dent in Premier Wynne’s climate change initiatives.
 Will Burlington’s Beer Fest benefit from the change in beer selling policy the provincial government put forward? Apparently global beer consumption in 2004 was 150.392 billion litres, resulting in a significant 9,354,382 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. Save the planet, drink whiskey.
These are two completely different budgets from two very different governments. Yet, Ontario could get to balance if they only increased progressive income taxes. Instead, the only provincial tax hike is a recessionary ‘buck-a-box’ for beer – likely a concession to the trans-national oligopolies controlling our Beer Stores. The benefits of the planned investments in infrastructure will be almost immediate and broadly felt. And, eventually the rest of the public will appreciate the economic benefits from faster commute times.
Joe Oliver’s budget, on the other hand, has done little but widen the spread between the haves and have-nots. It is understood that the vast majority of benefits from the family income-splitting scheme will go to the wealthiest families. And this interest tax-free account makes no economic sense. Since the average deposit into Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) was about $3000 when the limit had been $5500, who do we think will benefit when the limit goes to $10,000?
 Rivers suggests our economy is heading for a recession. Savings are essential in order to fund new investment. But without consumption there is no demand for investment. All of our income is either spent on consumption or saved. So were that new limit on TFSA’s to be actualized, there could be at least $4500 less consumption per saver per year – which is highly recessionary. And the last thing this faltering Canadian economy needs is to be pushed faster and further towards recession.
I have heard some call this federal budget a blow to generational equity – primarily by young people. Perhaps it is, but at a minimum it is a clear case of ideology trumping sound economics. I always believed the time to reward yourself (with tax breaks) is when the economy is booming – not when you are likely heading into a recession.
 Ray Rivers writes weekly on both federal and provincial politics, applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was a candidate for provincial office in Burlington where he ran as a Liberal against Cam Jackson in 1995, the year Mike Harris and the Common Sense Revolution swept the province.
Background links:
Provincial Climate Change Federal Budget TFSA Changes Contingency Fund
A Tax on Future Generations Retirement Savings Tax Breaks GM Shares Bill C-38
Provincial Budget Provincial Budget Priorities Beer in Stores Beer and Climate Change
By Pepper Parr
April 20, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
The Air Park issue is back on the table – on the hot plate actually with the heat being turned up.
In a very brief media release handed out during a city council meeting Monday evening the city said: The issue at the Air Park is of continuing concern to the residents of Burlington and there is a high degree of interest in this matter. For the purposes of informing the public the City Solicitor recommends that limited solicitor-client privilege be waives with respect to the following matters after final Council approval of this report as follows”:
Council waive solicitor client privilege with respect the advice/opinions contained in L-9-15 and its attachments strictly with respect to conveying to the public that:
Barbara Sheldon look at 32 feet of landfill less than 50 feet from her kitchen window. All dumped without any permits because an airport is federally regulated. The city is now back in Court asking a Judge to compel the Air Park to file a site Alteration site |Plan does that mean some of the fill might get removed? Burlington city council takes the position that it has full legal Authority to enforce the provisions of its Site Alteration By-law as against Burlington Air Park Inc. and the Burlington Air Park Inc., has been given 30 days from March 20, 2015 to comply with the by-law.
This news is released April 20th – suggesting that lawyer Ian Blue will be at the County Courthouse tomorrow morning with a brief asking the Judge to order the Air Park to submit a Site Alteration plan.
The city media release goes on to say: “That in all other respects, solicitor-client privilege is maintained over all other legal advice/opinions contained in L-9-15 and its appendices.”
In other words – they aren’t going to tell us anything else.
So much for the city’s intention to communicate with the public.
City Manager James Ridge, who smiles frequently and suggests he wants to be nice added a few words to the release when asked just what it meant.
“We are asking a court to compel the Air Park to comply with the site by-law
They could have said that in one sentence and do away with all the baffle gab.
This certainly ups the ante – the Air Park has found reason after reason; excuse after excuse to not file the proper documents – they’ve been doing this for years.
The city and the Air Park sued each other over whether or not the city had the right to require a Site Alteration Plan. They lost the case. Justice Murphy said they were requires to submit a plan.
The Air Park appealed that decision – they lost the appeal.
They hired a consulting form with a good reputation for quality work – and that firm did meet with staff in the planning department – but a complete |Site Alteration plan never quite made it to the planners.
 Getting a single picture with most of the players in it is unusual. On the far left is outside counsel Ian Blue who won two court cases for the city and has been brought in to stick handle the most recent legal issue. To the rear of Blue is Blake Hurley who is with the city legal department. Scott |Stewart chats with rural Burlington residents Robert Goulet, Ken Woodruff and Montre Dennis. Vanessa Warren looks over their shoulders. Warren, Dennis and Pepper Parr, publisher of the Burlington Gazette have been sued by the Air Park. That case has yet to get to court. A month or so ago the city brought Ian Blue the lawyer who handled the two court cases, back in and sought his advice. That advice is now evident.
The city wants to hope that they appear once again in front of Justice Murphy.
In a media release put out several hours after city council adjourned a time line reflecting just how long this has been going on.
Timeline
• July 4, 2013 – The City of Burlington moved forward with a legal strategy to address concerns regarding noise and fill activities related to construction at the Burlington Airpark on Bell School Line.
• July 18, 2013 – The Burlington Airpark serves the City of Burlington with an application to take the city to court and seeks a court order to declare the city’s site alteration by-law does not apply to the airport’s operations and construction of aerodrome facilities.
• July 29, 2013 – The City of Burlington and the Burlington Airpark reach a settlement to stop fill operations at the airpark until a decision is made by the courts about whether the city has jurisdiction to regulate fill operations through its site alteration by-law.
• Nov. 13, 2013 – A Milton Superior Court rules the City of Burlington’s site alteration by-law applies to the Burlington Airpark.
• June 11, 2014 – The Court of Appeal for Ontario upholds the decision of the Milton Superior Court that the City of Burlington’s site alteration by-law applies to the Burlington Airpark.
Added to the time line was the following:
“The City of Burlington site alteration by-law 64-2014 regulates the placing, dumping, cutting and removal of fill or the alteration of grades or drainage on a piece of land. Individuals undertaking this type of work are first required to submit an application to the city for a site alteration permit.
“The Burlington Airpark Inc. has not submitted an application for a site alteration permit for the areas of the Airpark property where substantial quantities of fill were deposited between 2009 to 2014.”
“The Burlington Airpark continues to be of great interest to the residents of Burlington,” said Mayor Rick Goldring. “The requirements set out in Burlington’s site alteration by-law are necessary to help regulate impacts to the environment and drainage patterns.”
 Dump trucks taking tonnes of landfill onto the Air Park property to level out part of the 200 acre site. They did so without any permits. The requirement for a site plan isn’t the only issue. The drilling of test holes to determine what if any toxicity exists at or near the water table as a result of the fill that has been dumped on the 200 acre plus site has yet to be resolved and something more than statement released from the provincial ministry that is involved in this mess on how it is going to inform the public.
The federal government is responsible for the regulations that determine what level of adherence the airport has to respect in terms of municipal bylaws.
The noose is getting tighter.
 By Staff
April 16, 2015
BURLINGTON, ON
On Wednesday April 15th 2015 between 1:00 PM and 2:30 PM, unknown culprit(s) broke into two separate homes on Glenwood Avenue in Burlington (Aldershot Community)
Culprit(s) broke a small glass door window at the rear of each home which allowed them to reach inside to unlock the door and gain entry into the home.
Once inside, culprits ransacked various areas of the home stealing cash and jewellery.
Anyone who may have observed any suspicious persons and/or vehicles in the area are asked to contact Det. Ellie Bale of the Burlington Criminal Investigations Bureau – Residential Crime Team at 905-825-4747 Ext. 2312 or anonymously through Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477).
Police would like to remind the public to remain vigilant in spotting and reporting any activity that appear suspicious.
The Halton Regional Police Service offers the following crime prevention tips to help reduce your chance of becoming victimized:
• Lock your valuables in a safety deposit box.
• Install a loud audible house alarm.
• Secure your safes and lock boxes to the floor.
• Be cautious when allowing people you don’t know into your home.
• Report any suspicious behaviour to police.
• Keep a detailed inventory of your jewellery including photographs. This will assist officers in the event your property is stolen.
• Check with your insurance company to ensure you have adequate coverage for your valuables.
• If you encounter someone in your home, DO NOT CONFRONT THEM. Call 9-1-1 immediately.
 By Halton Residents Against Sewage Backup and Flooding
October 22, 2014
BURLINGTON, ON.
Dear Mr. Carr:
Eleven weeks have passed since the Aug. 4th flood and majority of Burlington residents are still wondering what happened on that day when tens of thousands of liters of raw sewage and overflow from creeks entered into their homes, causing millions of dollars in damages and a plethora of issues from insurance battles to health risks to stolen repair deposits.
Below are questions and concerns from the residents of Burlington which HRASB compiled over the last several weeks. Health and Safety.
As you are well aware, there is a sizeable elderly population in Burlington and many live alone or with their domestic partner of many years. Several of these elderly folks did not have their homes cleaned out within the recommended time frame for a sewage backup. Also, the Ontario Environmental and Safety Network (OESN) mentions that fecal matter trapped in weeping tile and drains can release methane gas, not to mention when affected areas of the home are not adequately cleaned and tested (which OESN found in every case), then bacteria and viruses could grow and overt health effects could occur to otherwise healthy individuals. Why not bring in the Public Health Department to inspect homes?
Follow-up by the Region
We are aware of at least two residents who reported sewage backup flooding to the Region but were not contacted. Of those residents who were contacted by the Region, some reported missed appointments by Regional staff which resulted in delayed reconstruction or pressure from insurance companies for installation of the backwater valve system. Many residents still have storage pods in their driveways.
Burlington Flood Relief Foundation
Why did the representatives from the Burlington Flood Relief Foundation decline two invitations to attend sewer backup meetings thereby missing opportunities to connect with 350+ residents who were directly affected by sewage backup?
Wastewater Capital
Wastewater capital investment for new development in Oakville is 368.4 million dollars from 2012-2016 and a mere 6 million dollars for Burlington in the same time frame. Residents understand that Oakville is experiencing growth; however, Burlington east wastewater pumping stations were identified as ‘poor condition’ and the ‘highest priority’ (in Halton) as per RV Anderson and Associates engineering study provided in 2012 to the Halton Region. Why so little capital investment in Burlington when there are known issues?
Backwater Valve and Subsidy Decisions
Some residents will receive full coverage for the installation of back water valve and sump pump system while others will not. What exactly are the criteria for full subsidy and who oversees the program?
Construction by Year-End
If the Region is waiting for the results of a flood report expected in July of 2015, why are there plans to begin construction by year- end in some neighbourhoods? What knowledge does the Region have currently regarding the sanitary sewer infrastructure which has not been made public?
New Development
Residents feel that developers have ‘no business’ proposing high-rise apartments downtown, at Appleby Mall, or any other area of Burlington significantly impacted by sewer backup/flooding. Until the major infrastructure problems are identified, made public, and ultimately fixed, there will be significant push back by the residents.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Members of the HRASB
www.hrasb.com
Page 8 of 10«12345678910»
|
|
