A multimillion-dollar 海角社区官网waterfront construction project is one of the biggest clients of a Prince Edward County business that’s being accused of illegally excavating more than one million tonnes of limestone from a local shipping port.
The two companies that own Picton Terminals are facing one charge each of operating a quarry without a permit or licence from the province, after a justice of the peace on Friday found in favour of a rare legal challenge called a private prosecution, initiated by a group of Ontario residents. ABNA Investments and 1213427 Ontario have been summoned to appear in an Ontario court in Picton on March 7.
A group of residents had launched a private prosecution over allegations a quarry was being operated without a licence on Picton Bay. The
A group of residents had launched a private prosecution over allegations a quarry was being operated without a licence on Picton Bay. The
The maximum penalty for the charge is $1 million, plus additional penalties, including profits made during the illegal operation.
The decision came after four residents听submitted evidence to the justice of the peace in December,听arguing the companies have violated the province鈥檚 aggregate laws by digging up the shoreline on Picton Bay for at least five years and selling the limestone all over the province 鈥 including to听strengthen听Toronto鈥檚 waterfront听near Tommy Thompson Park, according to a sworn affidavit obtained by the Star.
The decision only allows the prosecution to move forward, and did not determine the merits of the case. Neither of the charges has been proved in court.
鈥淚’m relieved, after a 10-year battle, hearing that the justice of the peace saw what all of us saw,鈥 said Bill Beckett, who lives on the bay and is one of the four pursuing the private prosecution.
Ben Doornekamp and Hendrik Doornekamp 鈥 both members of an Odessa, Ont. developer family 鈥 were named as officers of the companies in the court documents.
“The referenced complaint is part of a very small local group smear campaign costing taxpayers a lot of money,” said Ben Doornekamp in an emailed statement. “All referenced allegations/complaints are very far from the truth. All actions at our Port have been/will be executed within the appropriate required government agency approval.”
Anyone can initiate a in Ontario if they believe on 鈥渞easonable and probable grounds鈥 another person has broken the law, including criminal and provincial offences. A听justice of the peace reviews these cases and decides whether or not听to issue a warrant or a summons.听
Picton Terminals is located in Prince Edward County. It is a shipping port on Lake Ontario.
Jilly MacIver/海角社区官网Staris home to a deep-water port facility dating back to the 1950s. In 2014, ABNA Investments, the Doornekamp-controlled business, took over the property.
According to the affidavits reviewed by the justice of the peace,听since at least 2020, more than one million tonnes of limestone aggregate 鈥 enough to build Yonge Street twice over 鈥 have been excavated without a licence or permit from Picton Terminals, and the family-owned companies have been awarded a cumulative $50-million worth of contracts for commercial supplies of limestone.听
听is a sedimentary rock that takes millions of years to take shape. It is used in various industries including construction, road building, water treatment and agriculture.
Despite Beckett’s relief over the justice of the peace鈥檚 decision last week, he鈥檚 also 鈥渄isappointed鈥 the property has been 鈥渄estroyed鈥 over the years. He said it cannot be fully restored because there isn鈥檛 a remediation plan 鈥 which is required to operate a legal quarry.
The allegations听call Picton Terminals a 鈥渟horeline quarry.鈥 Ontario’s听 (ARA) defines a quarry as land or underwater land where solid bedrock, like limestone or granite, is excavated and has not been rehabilitated.
鈥淚 think everyone in this province should worry because next time it could be your backyard,” said Beckett. “Once a quarry gets to the point it is now, it will never be returned to its original (form).鈥
In Ontario, a private property owner is generally required to 鈥 to extract aggregates like limestone, sand and gravel 鈥 but there are a few exemptions.
In 2016, the issued a letter to Ben Doornekamp allowing excavations at Picton Terminals for the primary purpose of making upgrades to the property,听stated an excerpt included in the affidavit.听The company wouldn’t need a licence or permit for that, according to the ministry.
But 鈥渋t is clear that very significant excavations and removal of aggregate have taken place that are unrelated to 鈥 site improvements,鈥 the affidavit alleges.
Ministry of Natural Resources spokesperson Mike Fenn told the Star in November in an email that, based on site visits and information given to them, Picton Terminals鈥 operations didn’t amount to a quarry.
The property in question is a 25-hectare piece of land on White Chapel Road with about 1,200 metres of shoreline on Picton Bay of Lake Ontario.
鈥淚 think it’s very well underpinned by the evidence that (Picton Terminals) took advantage of those generous exemptions from the ministry,鈥 said Doug Pollitt, a 海角社区官网mining engineer and analyst who is one of the four pursuing the case.
When the Doornekamp’s ABNA Investments took over Picton Terminals, it immediately announced plans to diversify the port services and redevelop the 25-hectare clifftop property.
Before long, blasting began on the escarpment, disturbing听the quiet community in Picton with frequent loud noise and environmental concerns, said the residents pursuing the case.
“Over the past several years, the municipality has attempted to address issues and concerns related to land use at the site,” said听Prince Edward County Mayor听Steve Ferguson鈥 in a written statement without further details, “while recognizing the positive impact that the operation has on the local economy.”
Ferguson鈥屘齛dded that local government does not have jurisdiction over “activities near the waterline and blasting rock from the cliff face,” instead pointing to the local听conservation authority and the province.
“We proactively communicate and work with all levels of government and they鈥檙e on our site quite frequently due to the complexities of the site,” said Ben Doornekamp in his written statement. “All levels of government understand what we are doing and have no issues.”
Fenn said on Monday听that the ministry was unable to comment on the case, “as the matter is before the courts.”
In an听听in December 2023, the ministry was criticized for often ignoring the听Aggregate Resources Act when companies don’t follow the law, having a “significant shortage” of experienced aggregate inspectors and failing to do regular inspections “or at all.” The report also found that violations of the law within the aggregate industry are high in general, but the ministry “rarely pursued charges.”
“It signals to both the regulated community and concerned stakeholders there are few consequences associated with non-compliance,” the auditor general wrote.
The property in question is a 25-hectare piece of land on White Chapel Road with about 1,200 metres of shoreline on Picton Bay of Lake Ontario.
Images supplied via court recordsIn addition to the affidavit, the residents submitted drone footage, Google Earth history images and satellite imagery to illustrate the changes on the Picton Terminals property after the Doornekamps acquired it. They allege that a more extensive road network was built on the property, the cliff face was partially blasted off and pushed back, and excavation took place all over the northern portion of the land between 2015 and 2024.
Picton Terminals and H.R. Doornekamp Construction Ltd., both with Doornekamp at their helm, entered into various contracts at a total value of about $50 million to supply limestone for multiple public projects across Ontario from 2017 to 2024, according to the affidavit.
The biggest client appears to be the 海角社区官网Region and Conservation Authority (TRCA), which signed contracts between 2019 and 2024听for a total value of about $30 million for limestone for its听, according to TRCA records.
The Ashbridges Bay project protects Toronto鈥檚 waterfront shoreline by managing erosion along the northeast shore of Tommy Thompson Park and controlling sediment buildup at the harbour entrance of Coatsworth Cut.
鈥淪o we鈥檒l screw over the next guy 鈥 for the benefit of yourself?鈥 Pollitt said. 鈥淚magine blowing up the Scarborough Bluffs and shipping the bits off to Picton for harbour repair.鈥
Doug Pollitt, a 海角社区官网mining analyst and engineer, is also pursuing the private prosecution arguing Picton Terminals is running an illegal quarry.
Andrew Wallace/海角社区官网StarAnil Wijesooriya, the TRCA鈥檚 director of restoration and infrastructure, told the Star in November that in general for construction projects like the one at Ashbridges Bay, the successful bidder must submit a copy of the licence and permit, and that a TRCA representative and an engineering consultant visit the quarry to observe the stone as well as 鈥渢he method of extraction.鈥
The that it takes into account the 鈥渆conomic, environmental, and social impacts鈥 of its procurement activities.
听鈥淲e have followed our relevant purchasing policies and procedures for this work, which are consistent with best practices across Ontario,鈥 the TRCA wrote in an email to the Star on Tuesday.
The TRCA also said it 鈥渉as documentation from H.R. Doornekamp pertaining to licensing and permitting,鈥 then pointed to the Ministry of Natural Resources for questions about licensing and regulatory oversight of Picton Terminals.
The TRCA did not provide a copy of a licence or permit as requested by the Star.
Beckett said the Picton community has 听Picton Terminals’ operations for years but nothing seems to have worked.
鈥淣one of us are looking for compensation,鈥 he said. 鈥淚 think we all can recognize that it is not in the public’s interest to have rogue businesses running roughshod outside the rules.鈥
Private prosecutions have been justified as a “safeguard against the failure of the authorities to prosecute,” said Palma Paciocco, an associate professor at Osgoode Hall Law School who is not involved in this case.
However, it’s rare for these cases to survive in the legal system for a number of reasons, such as limited resources compared to what a public prosecutor has access to, the burden of proof and how expensive it can be.
鈥淚f at the end of the day, there is a good process and the law is applied and the guy gets to carry on then that’s fine. But right now, there’s been no process,鈥 Pollitt said.
To join the conversation set a first and last name in your user profile.
Sign in or register for free to join the Conversation