Archive for the ‘history’ Category

September 22 Update

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

September 20, 2002

OMB Planning
c/o Mr. Andy Dawang for O.M.B. Chairman Mr. Gary Harron
655 Bay Street
Toronto, On. M5G 1E6

Dear Sir:

Quarry – Lot 10-12 Concession 12, Former City of Nanticoke

I acknowledge receipt of your letter faxed to me on September 11, 2002. See copy #1

Respectfully, please advise the authority relied on for the Board to revisit the matter. My lawyer, who represented me at the Board hearing, confirmed to me last year that the Board’s decision is final. Further to that I was advised by my solicitor that the aggregate act did not allow a review on a final O.M.B. decision order. See letter dated May 11, 2001 and copy of Bill 52 Aggregate Act. #2

Further, I am perplexed that the Board has to resolve any further issues. In my opinion all issues have been resolved, which has taken over four years to complete at a cost to our company of over $250,000.00 for the cost of the hearing alone as well as the loss of last year’s extraction sales of approximately $800,000.00 gross and loss of sales to date this year. The Board’s order is very clear to me.

The problem is that the M.N.R. and the M.O.E. will not issue the licenses which the Board has directed them to do, we have applied for the processing permits and licenses and completed everything of which we was obligated to do. Over one year later, we have still not received our licenses and no explanation is forthcoming. I would like to know what our rights are with respect to the default of the two Ministries in not complying with the Board’s Order.

We should not have to spend any more time and incur any more cost with respect to this matter. There would be no concerns whatsoever if the two Ministries would simply comply with the Board’s Order so that we may proceed with our business without the harassment received as a result of these delays.

My reference is to the recent complaints by lawyer Duxbury on behalf of the residents, and that of Haldimand County, in respect to the recent trespass on our property September 5th, 2002, 2 p.m. by M.N.R. Inspectors Steven Lamb and Paul Cutmore in order to gain information and deliver a stop work order 2:15 p.m. for operation of an illegal quarry. See Copy #3. We have not stopped producing aggregate and are now selling products produced on this property. If in fact there is an illegal quarry operation 1 year and 2 months after the clear and explicit O.M.B. direction order, we have to conclude that the root cause of any problem all relates directly back to the non compliance to the Board direction order to M.N.R. and M.O.E.. Yet now we have the enforcers out to our property from M.N.R. to attempt to continue to keep our business shut down. See July 25, 2001 O.M.B. Direction Order #4. There is something seriously wrong with this picture, and I have to wonder if the M.O.E. and M.N.R. have become parties to the conspiracy to bankrupt our business by officiates of the previous Haldimand-Norfolk government as well as Ministry of Transportation Ontario. When I review the events of what has caused the most controversy and problems to our application and O.M.B. hearings, the Ministry of Environment comes up as number 1 in respect to:

1. M.O.E. Junior Hydrogeologist, Simon Gautrey’s uncomplimentary and inflammatory review of our Hydrogeological investigation and report on the property prior to the hearing which was not reviewed by a Senior Hydrogeologint at M.O.E.

2. The October 20, 2001 letter from M.O.E. Barbara Ryter stating the M.O.E. would prefer that the Permits to take Water be issued prior to issuance of the aggregate license which in fact is a contravention to the Aggregate Act prescribed conditions.

3. The extended delay in issuance of the M.O.E. Permit to take Water applied for March 12th, 2002 and still not received 6 ½ months later when in fact I was informed by Paul Odum of M.O.E. May 2001 that it takes 3 months to process the application to issue a permit. We now have to try to determine or pinpoint why we have received this extended delay and spinning process from M.O.E..

The only thing that comes to mind is a possible payback from M.O.E. for embarrassment caused when in August of 2000, then Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Councillor Gary Nichols made public through an anonymous letter the cover-up investigation by M.O.E. and Regional Staff of illegal dumping at the Tom Howe Regional Landfill site. Councillor Nichols requested that O.P.P. investigate possible municipal corruption which of course as usual the. O.P.P. declined to investigate. Councillor Nichols then conducted his own investigation which included appeals for documentations to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commission who directed M.O.E. to release the documentation. However, critical documentation which would have confirmed a forged and falsified document produced by Commissioner of Engineering Eric D’hond’t and Regional Chairman John Harrison was not released as directed. A further appeal to the F.O.I. Commissioner (2 occasions) received no further response. Now we have to ask who is interfering with the Freedom of Information and Privacy Commission, and why did M.O.E. F.O.I. Co-ordinator Cathy Clarke not follow the direction order. See letter December 6, 2001. #5

It is interesting to note that the H-N Transition board appointed by the Province hired Mr. D’hond’t as Commissioner of Engineering for Norfolk County even before the M.O.E. investigation cover-up concluded. This served to place Mr. D’hond’t in a position where he has continued to conspire with others to bankrupt Nichols Gravel Limited. It should be further noted that it was Mr. D’hond’t, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Anderson that directed our company down this path of establishing a quarry relative to their discriminatory Tender specifications of 100% crushed aggregate which cannot be produced in gravel pits, but only in quarries and served to eliminate our company from competition to supply aggregate to the H-N Region.

Regardless of whether or not the M.O.E. or M.N.R. have become a party to this conspiracy, the failure to issue the necessary permits have delayed and prevented development to this point so that in fact if we continue to carry this huge debt burden without return cash flow, this will serve to bankrupt this company which in fact in any event supports the purpose of the existing conspiracy.

This conspiracy has also been supported by the Police and the Ontario Court of Justice with the latest obstruction of Justice out of Divisional Court Hamilton for the third time from Justice of the Peace Mitchell Baker regarding 16 private informations filed for Criminal charges. See Letter. #6 I suggest that the Attorney General should direct and appoint someone with the experience and integrity to review this information as her worship Justice of the Peace Madam General Lickers.

However, since there was a non response to my Private Information, we are proceeding as stated in my covering letter information #1 of March 15, 2002 to make all information now public. See letter. #7

As for the M.O.E. performance, the letter May 23, 2002 acknowledging our application for Permit to take Water 3 months after the fact with the Fairy Tale about the backlog and that it could take several months to process was in fact quite ridiculous in respect to the fact that at approximately the same time our M.P.P. Toby Barrett arranged for M.O.E. staff to come down to Delhi to hold an “open house” where farmers went in and filled out applications for Permits to take Water and had them processed on the spot. Quite amazing how things work in the Province of Ontario when you consider that the same member of parliament who we supported in 2 provincial elections did not have the courtesy to respond to my letter of inquiry of March 6, 2002 as to the status of our M.N.R. license. Do we also detect some political indifference or manipulation as well? I am certain that our heavy weight competition Lafarge, Cayuga-Dufferin and Trent Valley Sand and Stone would be pleased if this quarry was never approved and productive. They don’t need the competition, and have enjoyed a patronage preference for years.

It is also interesting to note that Marlene Phibbs the main driving force for the opposition to our quarry, rents land from Dufferin Aggregates.

At this point I believe that the conspiracy, discrimination and spin jobs to this company have gone quite far enough. We have had our O.M.B. hearing. A final decision order was issued July 25, 2001. The public planning process has been concluded, it is over, it is done, and we have complied to the letter of the law

My comment in conclusion is that this extended stress since 1994 has had a severe impact on the health of members of this family, brought about by the defamation and trade libel of our company’s products as well as the reflection on the honesty and integrity of this family who operates this business.

My wife required both a bowel and 2 breast cancer operations last year, and most recently our youngest son who has turned into a mental basket case from this prolonged stress, has informed us that he must leave our company in order to preserve his sanity.

I can truthfully state that in my entire 42 years in business, that I have never been involved in such an absolutely perverted fiasco, whereby no one is accountable for anything.

Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” most likely would not accept our story, as no one would believe that one family could encounter this degree of deception, discrimination, conspiracy, and corruption living in “Canada, the best country in the world.”

In experience of this company and this family, we conclude the following:

1. That our O.P.P. Law enforcement does not work.

2. The Ontario Court of Justice and the Supreme Court of Canada have not provided administration of Justice, but in fact obstruction of Justice.

3. And with the O.M.B. hearing fiasco, it now appears that the Public Planning process in Ontario does not work either.

In respect to the fact that a stop work order was issued September 5, 2002 by M.N.R., our lawyer has advised against having any further discussion after the fact with M.N.R., M.O.E, or the O.M.B., as this could compromise our position should this matter come before the courts.

The simple and logical solution at this point would appear to be for the O.M.B. to simply issue a directive to the M.N.R. and M.O.E. to comply with the Board order of July 25, 2001. End of story.

We thank the O.M.B. for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols

Additional Documentations:

1. Letter dated August 14, 2001 to O.M.B. Caseworker Mr. Andy Dawang. #8
2. Information Faxed 7:05 September 6, 2002 to M.N.R. Inspector Mr. Paul Cutmore. #9
3. June 6, 2002 response to letter March 6, 2002 to M.P.P. Toby Barrett. #10

c.c. Premier of Ontario
c.c. Attorney General of Ontario
c.c. Minister of Natural Resources Ontario
c.c. Minister of the Environment of Ontario
c.c. The news media

Review – Appeal August 23, 1996 Decision – Part I

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

This is a review of the June 3, 1999 Divisional Court Decision on the Appeal for the August 23, 1996 Decision of Justice John Carvarzon as heard by Justices Keenan, Semers and Cumming at the Superior Court of Justice, Hamilton.
(see scan 0 and scan 1a)

See lawyer letter of June 8, 1999 and attached Decision. This is the only copy received by the Appellant. (see scan_1b.pdf).

At first glance we ask “What is this document?”

This document contains no identification that it is, in fact, a Decision of Appeal of the Divisional Court, Superior Court of Justice.

NO recorded date of the decision.
NO signatures to confirm who heard the Appeal or rendered the Decision.

We question as to whether or not this decision “document” complies with prescribed Court Procedure and is, in fact, bone fide in law.

This vague and undefined document appears to be an attempt to suppress information concerning this particular Appeal process. Section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada addresses suppression of information under Breach of Trust and Fraud.

Was this production by the Justices designed so as not to reveal who made the decision and the fact that the Appeal was heard at the Divisional Court which was later confirmed to have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See document filed with the Court, September 15, 1999, confirming the decision.
(see scan_2.pdf)

In the opinion of Gary Nichols, when we go back and review the correlation of events, it would appear that what in fact really occurred was not the administration of Justice, but a carefully conspired plan to subvert and obstruct Justice!

Review of the Facts:

A. Shortly after the Appeal was filed in November 1996, Peter Haney, lawyer for the Frank Cowan Insurance Co., contacted the Appellant’s lawyer Paul Amey, and requested that the Appeal be transferred from the Ontario Court of Appeal to the Divisional Court, Hamilton, to which Mr. Amey agreed, without any discussion with the appellant, his client.

At the beginning of the Appeal hearing on June 3, 1999, Appeals Justice Keenan, Somers and Cumming informed the appellant’s lawyer Paul Brooks that: “We did not receive the transcripts.” They then commented that they could use the Appeal books as reference and instructed Mr. Brooks to proceed with his presentation on behalf of Nichols Gravel Limited.

These Justices then proceeded to hear the appeal without prior reference to the sworn evidence of the transcripts from the trial. Further, they did NOT require the defense to provide input to the hearing, and after a short recess, returned with their decision and dismissed the appeal quoting, almost ver batim, the same errors in law as Justice Carvargan. No problem! (See Negligent Event #5)

Upon leaving the courtroom, Gary Nichols went directly to the office of the Court Recording Clerk to inquire as to what happened to the transcripts which the Justices stated they did not receive. Recording Clerk Deborah Merer responded to the inquiry: “We didn’t receive them.” Further investigation of the Court record, later confirmed that the Appellate certificate shipped along with the transcripts were sent by courier to the Court May 30, 1997, confirming that if the Appellate certificate was received at the court and recorded that day, the transcripts were also received that day. (See scan_d2.pdf)

Our lawyer later clarified that Court procedure requires that the appellate certificate and transcripts must be received and held on file by the Court before the court can set a court date for trial.

The court date was confirmed on May 5, 1999, obviously confirming that the transcripts were reviewed and held on file at that date, which further confirms that Deborah Mercer lied to Gary Nichols regarding receiving the transcripts when questioned on June 3, 1999. (See notice of Appeal hearing. scan_d3.pdf)

After the Appeal hearing and Decision of June 3, 1999, it was confirmed as a fact by lawyer Julian Falconer that Divisional Court does NOT have jurisdiction to hear cases where the value of the claim exceeds $25,000. The Claim for Damages of Nichols Gravel Limited was $3.5 million with proven monetary losses of approximately $211,240, which is far in excess of $25,000.

Why then was this case heard at Divisional Court of Appeal? Justice Carvarzan in his rambling 46 page decision, dismissed ALL claims for damaged by Nichols Gravel, but by mistake or on purpose neglected to state the dollar value of the claims that he dismissed. (See Negligent Event #1)

It should be clarified that Justice Carvarzon’s dismissal of all claims for damages and regardless of whether he stated the value of the claim or not, this does NOT in any way later or change the original claim as filed when it proceeds under appeal to another court. If the appeal had been granted, only at that point could the Appeal Court set and rule on the amount of the claim awarded.

Obviously Mr. Haney, acting for the Frank Cowan Insurance Company should have been well aware of prescribed Court Procedures in respect to claims for damages and court jurisdiction when he requested the case transfer to Divisional Court. (See Neglegent Event #2)

Mr. Amey, lawyer for the appellant should also have been aware of prescribed Court Procedure. (Negligent Event #3)

This transfer required Court approval and this was granted by Justice Osborne at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Most certainly one would expect the Associate Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Justice Osborne to be thoroughly aware of court procedures and jurisdiction, when he improperly approved and granted the transfer to Divisional Court. It is interesting to note that Justice Osborne left that position shortly thereafter and now holds the office of Ontario Provincial Integrity Commissioner (See Negligent Event #4)

Now we must ask the question, did Mr. Haney and the Frank Cowan Insurance Company have contacts within the Ontario Court of Justice and at Divisional Court, Hamilton, who were willing to manipulate and obstruct the administration of Justice, or are all of these negligent events just one large, unexplainable, unfortunate coincidence?

July 2004 – Latest Developments

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010