This Toronto Star article outlines the charges being faced by the two companies that own Picton Terminals, and the private prosecution brought forth by four residents in the area that led to the charges.
According to the Pickton Gazette, the four are Doug Pollitt, Bill Beckett, Victor Lind and Robert Beutel.
A court date has been set for March 7, 2025, and ABNA Investments and 1213427 Ontario Inc. have been summoned to appear at the Ontario Court of Justice in Picton. A justice of the peace ruled in favour of the applicants on January 17.
It's a good read, and will hopefully bring some relief to the community after the exposure ramps up the enforcement and repercussions for offenders that skirt not only aggregate laws but also local government efforts to control unwanted, damaging projects.
Here’s a view of the property boundaries of the site:
According to the land registry, it is owned by Abna Investments. The parcel is 62.5 acres and was last transferred in 1997. They also own two property parcels across White Chapel Rd., with 26.4 acres and 13.1 acres in size and were last transferred in 2017 and 2020.
The article outlines a legal dispute with ABNA Investments and 1213427 Ontario, owners of Picton Terminals in Prince Edward County, Ontario (with connections to the Doornekamp family), who are accused of unlawfully operating a quarry. They allegedly removed over one million tonnes of limestone from Picton Bay's shoreline without the required permits. Here's a breakdown:
Legal Action: Four local residents initiated a private prosecution, successfully obtaining a summons for the companies on charges of quarry operation without a permit. Potential penalties include fines up to $1 million plus additional fines for profits gained.
Background: Since 2020, Picton Terminals is said to have extracted and sold limestone, including for projects like enhancing Toronto's waterfront at Tommy Thompson Park. They've secured about $50 million in contracts for limestone supply since 2017.
Justification and Disputes: The companies assert that their activities were sanctioned as part of site improvements, citing a 2016 letter from the Ministry of Natural Resources. However, the accusers claim these activities went beyond what was legally allowed.
Environmental and Community Impact: Local residents are concerned about the environmental damage, noise pollution from blasting, and the permanent alteration of the landscape without a remediation strategy.
Regulatory Oversight: Despite earlier statements from the Ministry of Natural Resources that the operations did not qualify as quarry activities, an auditor general's report suggests there are significant oversight issues, indicating that violations in the aggregate sector often go unchecked.
Economic Considerations: The operations bring economic advantages, which the local mayor and the companies highlight, but this is contrasted by the community's focus on environmental and legal violations.
Legal Process: The case is advancing to court, with no conclusive judgment on the merits yet. Private prosecutions such as this one are uncommon and face hurdles due to limited resources and the high burden of proof.
View homes for sale in Prince Edward County
About the Author
John Owen, Broker, RE/MAX Impact
John is an award-winning broker with RE/MAX Impact Realty and is a member of the RE/MAX Hall of Fame.
Direct - 905-434-0067
Email - johnowen@remax.net
Member, Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA), Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB).
Comments:
Post Your Comment: