A Decision in Our Favour

April 22nd, 2010

Read about the decision of her Worship Justice of the Peace W. Casey of the Ontario Court in Cayuga, Ontario on January 28, 2005.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources – Fraud and Intimidation

April 22nd, 2010

Learn about the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources continued intimidation and fraud against a family business.

Read their intimidating letter.

August 23, 1996 – Review of Appeal Decision

April 22nd, 2010

Review – Appeal August 23, 1996 Decision – Part II

Having reviewed the decision of the Appeal Court with our new lawyer Julian Falconer, and being advised that our appeal was heard in a court without jurisdiction, it was decided to proceed to Leave to Appeal the decision of the Divisional Court.

We immediately continued to investigate this unfair process and the mysterious loss of our transcripts.

See letter of July 13, 1999 appealing to the Honorable Patrick Le Sage, Chief Justice of Ontario to intervene in this questionable Court process.

By letter dated July 16, 1999, a request was made to O.P.P. Inspector Normal Denchert to investigate the loss of our transcripts by the Courts.  
(See letter opp 1)

On July 21, 1999, Gary Nichols reviewed the file #D799/96 and records at Divisional Court Hamilton, and directed another letter to OPP Inspector Denchert with further information.  (see letter opp 2)

In respect to the fact that Commissioner Boniface was aware of the request to investigate, and it was confirmed by Inspector Denchert that there was no investigation or final report, this would seem to also confirm that there was no direction from the Commissioner to investigate.  The obvious reasonfor that is that no on really wanted any information revealed as to what happened to these transcripts or if, in fact, the Justices did receive them.  So the conspired “cover up” continued, as the case made its way through the Justice system.

Equality before the Law?  No selective Justice before the Law, resulting in no justice at all.

Next:  Review of Leave to Appeal by Justices Finlayson, Weiler and O’Connor, JJA, dismissal without reasons, and again without reference to the sworn evidence of the transcripts from the trial before Justice Carvarzan.

March 6, 2002 – Letter to MPP Toby Barrett

April 22nd, 2010

March 6, 2002

M. P. P. Haldimand-Norfolk-Rrant
Mr. Toby Barrett
39 Norfolk St.
SIMCOE, Ontario

Dear Mr. Barrett:

I am writing in respect to our proposed Quarry at Hagersville which has been the subject of
various letters over the past 4 years copied to you, the Ministry of the Environment, and the
Ministry of Natural Resources.

As you are well aware, this application for rezoning and Class A Category 2 M.N.R. license, along
with the uncomplimentary review from the Ministry of the Environment, provoked a long drawn out
and costly Ontario Municipal Board hearing process which lasted most of the year 2000 and
concluded November 1st, 2000.

On April 3rd, 2001 approximately 5 months after the hearing concluded we received a decision
order from the O.M.B. and after the 30 day appeal period had passed I called the O.M.B. for
clarification and spoke with case worker Andy Dawang as to when this order became effective,
and whether or not we could proceed with development of the quarry, as we were reluctant to
expend money on the property, and then have someone obtain a stop work order so that we could
not proceed. I was assured by Mr. Dewang that the Boards’ position was that the decision had
been rendered and there was nothing to prevent us from proceeding.

Although the decision order did not direct that a Permit to take water was required prior to
issuance of the M.N.R. license, in his summation Chairman Harron had stated that he agreed with
the M.O.E. position of the October 20~ letter proposing that a Permit to take water be issued by
M.O.E. prior to issuance ofthe Class A License.

In early May 2001 an application for a Temporary Permit to take water was applied for to the
M.O.E., so that we could proceed to develop the quarry and conduct the further Hydrogeological
review requested by the Dillon Peer review within the one year term of the Temporary M.O.E.
P.T.T.W..

At the end of May I called the Director of Water Resources M.O.E., Hamilton branch to inquire as
to the status of our application. Mr. Odum stated that we did not need a Permit to take water as
our prescribed extraction evidence to the O.M.B. was that we would not contact the water table
in the first lift of 7 metres and most likely would not require a Permit to dewater for 20 years, and furthermore he could no issue a permit before the
fact or before it was required.

I agreed with Mr. Odums’ comments, but reminded him that Mr. Harrons’ summation seemed to
indicate that we must obtain a Permit to take water before the issuance of the Class A License
from M.N.R. Mr. Odum then responded that he would have to have clarification from the O.M.B.,
and I had no further discussion with M.O.E until on July 12~, 2000 I received a fax from our
consultant of a draft agreement from M.O.E. for a Temporary Permit to take water. Although our
consultant had an appointment with M.O.E. staff for July 24th, 2000 this agreement had been
drafted without discussion or consultation with our consultant or anyone from our company.

On July 25th, 2001 the O.M.B. issued another decision order # 1194 which stated quote: The
Board Directs the Minister, pursuant to Section 11 (8) of the Aggregate Resources Act R.S.O.
1990 to issue a Class “A” license for the removal of aggregate from lands composed of Part of
Lots 10,1 1, and 12, Concession 12, in the City of Nanticoke subject the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall obtain a long~term Water Taking Permit issued by the Ministry of
Environment.
2. The applicant shall fulfill a set of conditions as set out in Attachment “2”
The license is for the removal of aggregate to the bottom of the Bois Blanc formation
only. and there is to be no quarrying of the Bertie formation at this location. The
action plan is attached as Attachment “3”.

Upon reviewing condition # I of the decision, this seemed to cancel any possibility of obtaining a
Temporary Permit to take water. This meant that we were too late in the season to proceed with
hydrogeological investigations and develop the quarry and obtain a return of cash flow in the year
2001.

At that point we had no option but to instruct our consultant not to pursue further discussions
with M.O.E. and deferred all further expense in this regard. By this time we had already spent
just under $100,000.00 on hydrogeological investigation on the property, and the work suggested
by Dillons’ Peer review came in at an additional estimate of $110,000.00.

In our view this additional investigation is not necessary at this time as our own investigations
indicate no contact with the water table in the first lift of 7 metres. If there is no contact with
the water table there is no need to dewater for extraction, therefore no dewatering means that
there is no impact. There is quite adequate monitoring provisions in the 55 conditions agreed to at
the hearing, until the point where it becomes necessary to dewater for extraction.

The proposal by M.O.E. in the letter of October 20~, 2000 which evolved through discussion
between our lawyer and Barbara Ryter of M.O.E. was a no brainer right from the start for a
number of reasons.

In the first place it was illegal to propose a condition before the fact, that a Permit to take water be obtained prior to issuance of the M.N.R. license. This is already addressed under Prescribed Conditions of the Aggregate Act under Category “2” Section 3, Subsection 3.9 quote: If required, a Permit to take water will be obtained for utilizing ground and/or surface water. unquote.

Aggregate Act

Prescribed Conditions:

The prescribed conditions are conditions that pertain to the individual category and cannot be varied or recinded by either the Minister or the Ontario Municipal Board. On a site-by-site basis, additional conditions can be attached to the license or site plan at the discretion of the Board or Minister, however these conditions do not form part of the prescribed conditions.

We are extremely disappointed in what has turned into a complete fiasco, as a result of what now appears to be a negligent performance by our lawyer, our planner and officials of M.O.E. in providing this illegal proposal to the O.M.B.. This was done at the insistence in the I 1~ hour over my protest that this would only serve to further complicate matters, which history now confirms to be correct.

The October 20th, 2000 M.O.E. letter was received by fax from our lawyer October 234, 2000 at 10:33 A.M. and read by myselfthat evening after I returned home that day from the first day of the O.M.B. hearing.

No one could expect Chairman Harron to be familiar with all aspects of the Aggregate Act, and he simply accepted information provided by lawyers and witnesses and attempted to resolve the various issues.

However, when I carefully read the fmal order of July 25th, 2001, I find no direction that a Permit to take water must be obtained prior to issuance of the M.N.R. License, and in fact Condition #2 appears to properly direct quote: The applicant shall fulfill a set of conditions as set out in Attachment “2”. unquote. If you make reference to Attachment “a” the first conditions of approval are the prescribed conditions of the Aggregate Act and under #9 it states: If required a Permit to take water will be obtained for utilizing ground and/or surface water.

This all seems quite clear to me, Chairman Harrons’ decision complies with the Aggregate Act prescribed conditions and directs M.N.R. it issue the license.

My question now is why has this O.M.B. direction not been complied with by M.N.R. and what seems to be the problem?

If there is any common sense or logic, the bottom line is, that if first the ~.N.R. license is not issued, we don’t require a Permit to take water, we also do not require 55 conditions of agreement to issue the license, and nothing in this entire exercise is relevant until the point that the license is issued by M.N.R. The appeal was filed with the O.M.B. for approval of rezoning and the issuance of a Class A Category “2” license, it was not appealed for an M.O.E. Permit to take water. The O.M.B. must respond directly to the appeal by M.N.R. and Nichols Gravel Limited. This Is the only option which directly fulfills the purpose for the O.M.B. hearing in respect to the M.N.R. License.

In summary I hereby advise that subject to a request by the land renter to construct an irrigation pond to water crops, we shall be proceeding with construction of this pond as of April I I’, 2002, as it is quite obvious that whether Mr. Sommers crops the land, or we crop the land, water will be required in order to keep the land productive in these periods of extreme draught condition~ntil such time as the M.N.R. License is issued the primary use of this land is Arming which would make the construction of the irrigation pond comparable to an “other use” such as the Van Aqua Fish Farm gravel operation at Burford, Ontario. See letter Mr. Sommers. See Nichols Gravel Limited response.

In order to avoid further confusion and confrontation in the future, I suggest and request that the Ministry of Natural Resources immediately comply with the O.M.B. decision order of July 25th, 2001 as directed, and issue the Class “A” Category “2” license to Nichols Gravel Limited.

Thank you for your consideration to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols, Pres.

Nichols Gravel Limited.

cc Minister of Natural Resources
cc M.O.E. Mr. Paul Odum
cc M. N. R. inspector Joe Strachan
cc O.M.B. Case Worker Andy Dawang

Ministry of Transportation Ontario – Private Information #1

April 22nd, 2010

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION ONTARIO

PRIVATE INFORMATION #1 INDEX

Number Primary Information

1. April 14th, 1997 letter to O.P.P. Staff Sergeant Erskine Events 1 – 17.

IO 89/09/ll Chris Rodgers Letter

1. September 22, 1989 Test results B13-151 Nichols Pit #3.
2. August 18, 1989 Stop work order and Specification Form 1010.
3. Chris Rodgers Report EM-91 Ref. Page 17. Page 5.
4. Report EM-91 Page 4 and Chris Rodgers Cr. Examination May 15th, 1996.
5. February 28th, 1990 Gary Nichols letter to Minister of Transportation.
6. Action memo to Cy Barber from Bob Cook, M.T.O..
7. April 18th, 1990 memo report Chris Rodgers Nichols gravel #3 Highway.
8. July 9th, 1990 letter Southwestern Region Reg. Director Richard Puccini.
8b. November 16th, 1990 letter R. Puccini confirming statements of July 9th, 1990 letter.
9. Chris Rodgers Cr. Exam describing Prof. Hudec experience in Petrography.
10. May 1990 M.T.O. Log hole testing R. Spriet property and August 13th, 1990.lawyer letter describing purchase by Nichols Gravel Limited and filing of deed July 19th, 1990.
11. May 9th, 1994 M.T.O. falsified sample sheets stone chips Norfolk Twp..
12. April 3rd, 1996 Norfolk Twp. F.O.I. response request 1-96
13. 1994 March A.S.L.94-04.
14. M.T.O. falsified testing on Trow samples H-N Rd. 19. Sample size too small.
15. 1983 Provincial Highways Guidelines to acceptance sampling and testing granular materials Page 6, Sample Size.
16. July 12th, 1995 Newspaper Trade Libel.of Nichols gravel by M.T.O. Winston Oostenbrug.
17. 1994 A.S.L. 94-17 and A.S.L. 94-04 confirm Oostenbrug false statements of fact.

Supplementary Information to Covering Letter dated March 15th, 2002

18. Katona M.T.O. Test result comparison B13-140 Nichols Pits 2 and 4.
19. February 4th, 1994 Pits 2 and 4 M.T.O. Granular A B-13-140.
20. September 14th, 1993 B13-140 M.T.O. Test Concrete Stone.
21. M.T.O. A.S.L. 91-06

22. M.T.O. A.S.L. 90-95.
23. Katona In Chief Pg. 1065.
24. Katona In Chief Pg. 1048
25. 90/01/26 Letter Chris Rodgers.
26. Katona Cr. Exam. Pg. 1141.
27. June 3rd, 1999 Appeal Decision.
28. March 25th, 1992 and April 9th, 1996 Reports Prof. Hudec.
29. 1983 H-N Region Eric D’Hond’t and Nil Lambert falsified test results
30. February 22, 1984 Letter Dominion Soils confirming falsified test results.
31. May 31st, 1994 H-N Eng. Committee Minutes to disqualification of Nichols Gravel Limited low bids Granular A Report ERD 24/94 Page 2.
32. April 19th, 1994 Golder Report on problems H-N Rd. 19.
33. May 31, 1994 Gary Nichols presentation to H-N Engineer Committee.
34. April 1994 Newspaper Article Rd. 19.
35. H-N Region F.O.I. Gran. A Purchase 1993-1997 and Winter Sand purchases 1992-1997.
36. August 26, 1991 letter H-N C.A.O. Charles Douglas Purchasing Investigation.
36. October 2nd, 1991 Letter and council resolution requiring staff to follow Purchasing by law.
36. February 6, 1992 Letter C.A.O. Douglas.
37. March 13th, 1996 Letter Brant County.
38. January 6, 1995 Letter M.T.O. Winston Oostenbrug confirming no information provided on M.T.O. Aggregate Source List Southern Ontario for Class 1 or Class 5 aggregate.
39. May 16, 1994 Letter Gary Nichols.
40. May 4th, 1994 Delhi News Record Frank Gelinas, David Anderson Trade Libel to Nichols Gravel Limited.
41. May 9th, 1994 Norfolk Tender Gran. A Cancellation Nichols bids.
42. March 3rd, 1995 H-N Rd. 42 test results conspired improper sampling & testing again.
43. March 7th, 1995 Delhi Twp. cancel Winter Sand Purchase order Nichols Gravel Limited.
44. May 31st, 1995 Conspiracy W. Oostenburg, Jamie Francisco cancel Nichols Gravel Limited low bids. See Letter.
45. June 27th, 1995 Delhi Twp. Church St. Incident Newspaper. July 5th, 1995.
46. Anderson Transcript Church St. incident.
47. H-N Reg. Police report Church St. incident.
48. June 26, 1995 Bethel Rd. Consultant Report.
49. July 12th, 1995 M.T.O. Winston Oostenbrug Trade Libel Delhi News Record.
50. October 16th, 1995 David Anderson Trespass charge against Gary Nichols.
51. December 6, 1995 Gary Nichols deputation to Delhi Public Works Comm.
52. February 7th, 1996 Frank Gelinas report in response to December 6, 1995 deputation with council “Direction”.
53. September 18th, 1996 Letter to the Editor.
54. February 13th, 1997 Request O.P.P. Investigation Conspiracy and Perjury David Anderson and Frank Gelinas.
55. September 16th, 1997 Letter to the Editor regarding the investigation.
56. August 25th, 1997 News Paper Cr. Attorney Swanson Retires, age 54.
57. May 1999 F.O.I. Reconstructed O.P.P. Final report on Investigation Anderson and Gelinas.
58. June 3rd, 1999 Appeal hearing dismissal “Reasons”.
59. July 16, 1999 Request to investigate to O.P.P. Insp. Denckert the lost transcripts.
60. November 24th, 1999 Leave to Appeal dismissal without Reasons.
61. September 28th, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada dismissal without Reasons.
62. November 6, 2000 Delhi Twp. Council meeting personal attack libel Councillor Gary Nichols.
63. November 13th, 2000 Municipal Election.
64. Claim filed by Gary Nichols for libel and defamation character.
65. Letter to H-N Transition Board Dwayne and Darryl Nichols request for deputation.
66. Gary Nichols Cr. Examination May 1996 by Lawyer Peter Haney, describing the long term conspired discrimination to our business, which I suggest after 40 years must now stop.
67. Litigation and claim Norfolk Township.

March 15, 2002 –

April 22nd, 2010

March 15, 2002
Ministry of the Attorney General
Ontario Court of Justice (Criminal)
530 Queensway W., Simcoe

Attention: Judge/Justice of the Peace or Whom it May Concern

Information #2

Dear Sir or Madam:

This “information” is sworn in an attempt to address the continued miscarriage of Justice which has now occurred for the second time due to the false evidence provided to Police and to the Courts by David Anderson and Frank Gelinas in respect to Application for Prohibition under Criminal Code Section 111.

The enclosed supporting documentation in my letter of July 11, 2001 request to investigate to O.P.P. Det. Const. Rob Scot confirms the false evidence provided to a police investigation “obstruction of Justice” which provoked the application sworn and executed for the Prohibition Warrant of May 31, 2000 and concluded with the court hearing and dismissal of the application July 23, 2001. See July 11th, 2001 letter.

In respect to the fact that these same false statements and various others, were provided at the trial in May 1996 in the case of Nichols Gravel Limited v. Township of Delhi David Anderson and Frank Gelinas. Please find enclosed other events as researched and listed for Mr. Anderson #1 1-14 and for Mr. Gelinas #2 1– 4

Although some of the events as listed may not be deemed to be conspiracy, forgery and perjury, they are at the least false and speculative misrepresentations of fact and fraud to the Courts which influenced Justice Carvarzan’s decision to dismiss our case and based upon this decision, the dismissal of our Appeal, and Leave to Appeal dismissal without reasons, and the Leave to Appeal Dismissal without reasons by the Supreme Court of Canada without consideration.

In respect to this case, in order to place the events of the past 8 years in understandable perspective please find the following background information of fact:

1. May 4th, 1994 Delhi Township C.A.O. Frank Gelinas based on a falsified document, the Delhi Township 1994 Summary of Aggregate Quotations produced
by David Anderson, libeled Nichols Gravel Limited and its products as published in the Delhi News Record that date.
2. May 16, 1994 letter to council from Gary Nichols received no response. See Letter.
3. Twp. Delhi July 26th, 1994 litigation filed by Nichols Gravel Limited against Township of Delhi David Anderson and Frank Gelinas.
4. This litigation was not filed over money, it was filed to protect the reputation of this 51 year old company and the honesty and integrity of the family which operates the company.
5. May 1996 the litigation heard in the 8 ½ day trial before Justice John Carvarzan.
6. July 23rd, 1996 hearing in Hamilton before Justice Carvarzan further evidence provided by Nichols Gravel Limited confirming by M.T.O. testing the stone quality P.N. of Nichols gravel Class 5 Aggregate met specification. No record. No request for transcript of evidence by Justice Carvarzan.
7. August 23rd, 1996 Justice Carvarzan`s biased decision released dismissing charges against the Township and staff.
8. September 18th, 1996 letter to the Editor.
Conspiracy and Perjury identified in evidence provided by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas. See newspaper letter to the Editor.
9. October 28th, 1996 Deputation by Gary Nichols to Delhi Township Council to provide identified false evidence provided at trial and Council requested to take appropriate action regarding staff. No response.
10. November 1996 Justice Carvarzans’ decision appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
11. February 13th, 1997 Request to Simcoe O.P.P. to investigate Conspiracy and Perjury by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas.
Reviewed by Constable Thomas MacLean and Crown Attorney Lois Aicken. Response: no grounds for Criminal Charges. No investigation. See Police report.
12. April 14th, 1997 Request to investigate to London O.P.P. Staff Sergeant Erskine.
13. Request and file transferred to Detective Const. Robert Scott O.P.P. Brantford to investigate, Conspiracy and Perjury as well as forged and falsified M.T.O. documents.

September 7th, 1997 after 6 months investigation Det. Scott informed Gary Nichols that Crown Attorney Swanson refused to file charges, and instructed Det. Scott not to investigate Ministry of Transportation and to leave it alone. See my letter to the Editor account September 16th, 1997. See reconstructed Police report after F.O.I. request dated May 12th , 1999. No final report until May 12th, 1999. Another O.P.P. cover-up?

August 29th, 1997 Crown Attorney Swanson takes the golden handshake from the province and retires at age 54. Does something smell bad here between these 2 dates of August 29th, and September 7th, 1997? I think so! This timing is too much of a co-incidence to be co-incidence. The Province makes an offer package you can’t refuse, do the deed and retire. If this is not what happened, it certainly looks that way. See Newspaper.

June 3rd, 1999 Divisional Court Appeal Hearing Keenan Somers and Cumming J.J. Appeal dismissed without prior reference to the transcripts of evidence from the trial of May 1996. No transcripts of evidence of June 3rd, appeal, not requested by Appeals Justices. Very neat and tidy. No record of the trial June 3rd, 1999.

November 24th, 1999 Leave to Appeal dismissed without reasons Finlayson Weiler and O’Conner J.J.A. Ontario Court of Justice.

September 28th, 2000 Leave to Appeal dismissed without reasons, or consideration. L’Heureux-Dube, Bastarache and LeBel J.J. Supreme Court of Canada. See court record.

In respect to all of this information, what is most interesting is the apparent negligence of the Justices and the Courts:

1. In the first instance with the transfer of our case from the Ontario Court of Appeal to Divisional Court Hamilton, my own Lawyer was negligent in his decision and agreement to the transfer at the request of the Defense Lawyer Mr. Haney.

2. The courts with the decision of Justice Osborne was negligent in approving the transfer to a court without Jurisdiction, as Divisional Court is restricted to hearing claims of less than $25,000.00, Nichols Gravel Limited claim was for 3 million dollars, which by mistake, or on purpose contributed to further the negligence by Justice Carvarzan, as the value of the claim was not stated in his decision and “Reasons”.

3. Our February 1999 court date deferred and cancelled by “Darren” at Hamilton.

4. June 3rd, 1999 trial date to hear our appeal of Justice Carvarzans’ decision.

Justices Keenan Somers and Cumming J.J. announced at the start, that they did not receive the transcripts of evidence from the trial, and after a brief mumbled discussion with each other, turned back to our lawyer Mr. Brooks and stated, “we have the appeal books as reference, proceed Mr. Brooks,” and continued to hear our appeal without prior reference to the evidence from the trial for the appeal that they were appointed to hear, and after a short recess came back and dismissed our appeal quoting Justice Carvarzans’ decision almost word for word. No comment in respect to the trade libel by Frank Gelinas which provoked the litigation in the first place, which Justice Cavarzan brushed over and did not properly address, or the justification for the discriminatory Council “Direction” not to deal with Nichols Gravel Limited which was quite illegal, as there were no provisions in Township Purchasing Policy for such action and there was no confirming resolution of Council and no written record whatsoever. See Municipal Act Part V11 Section 101 (1) Jurisdiction of Councils – Except where otherwise provided, the Jurisdiction of every council is confined to the Municipality that it represents and its powers shall be exercised by by-law.

In the Ontario Court of Justice “Discrimination and Patronage Government” is not a problem in this province. You must pay your business tax, but we won’t deal with you. Quite unbelievable! See Warrant Distrain of Taxes.

Comment:

In my opinion this leaves a number of pertinent and logical questions unanswered.

1. When we decided to appeal the decision of Justice Carvarzan, my lawyer stated that it was then a requirement that before we could proceed to court with the appeal, that we must produce 3 copies of the transcript of evidence from the trial which was done at a cost of $3,500.00. This provided a single copy of all of the evidence for each one of the 3 appeals Justices. Since there must exist a court regulation, requiring the production of transcripts for the appeal in order to review the evidence, it would logically seem to me that there must be a comparable court regulation stating that the appeals Justices must receive and review the evidence from the trial in order to prepare for, and to hear the appeal.
2. Which brings us to the next question. If the appeals Justices were informed of the trial date and were aware that they had not received the transcripts of the trial, why did they not contact the Registrar of Records of the Court and request copies of the transcripts? My lawyer Mr. Brooks informed me that he expected that at least one of the appeals Justices would read the entire evidence from the trial, but when we got to trial, no one had received the transcripts of evidence, no one had requested the evidence, no one had read the evidence, and then a decision was rendered without knowing the actual evidence produced at trial under oath. This was administration of Justice? No, I think not. This appears to be more like a set up, and now we have to ask the question, was this in fact a conspiracy to obstruct justice in order to cover up for the negligence of the courts and Justice Carvarzan’s speculative wishy-washy law perverted decision?

When all of the facts are considered, this seems to be a very distinct possibility.

This seems to be further confirmed by my inquiry to Divisional Court Recording Clerk Registrar of Records, Deborah Mercer on June 3rd, 1999 when I stopped after leaving the court room to inquire as to what happened to our transcripts. Her response quote: “We didn’t receive them.” unquote. Further investigation confirmed that the transcripts were received 06/04/97 which further confirmed that Deborah Mercer lied to me on June 3rd, 1999.

My lawyer also further advised me that the courts were not allowed to set a court date unless the transcripts had been delivered and were held at the court on file. The notice of trial was dated May 5th, 1999 for court date of June 3rd, 1999 which would seem to confirm that the transcripts disappeared between May 5th, 1999 and the court date, but no other documents in the file disappeared, further compounding the mystery.
My July 16th, 1999 request to O.P.P. Inspector Denckert to investigate as to what happened to our transcripts was not acknowledged and a recent Freedom of Information response, which provided a response letter from Inspector Denckert dated August 31st , 2001 indicated at no time did he file a final report to this investigation request, which indicates to me that there was no investigation, and we appear to have another police cover-up for the negligence of the Justices and the Courts.

After much exchange of correspondence with Divisional Court it was indicated that in fact they had been unable to locate the transcripts and that somehow in fact they were lost. See Letter.

Since there was no proper investigation conducted to definitely conclude who was responsible or what actually took place or happened, I believe in that respect I have a right to speculate an opinion as to what actually happened.

I believe that Deborah Mercer carried out her duties faithfully as she has always done, and provided the transcripts to the appeal Justices, who began to review the evidence, and soon realized what a horrible abomination Justice Carvarzan had delivered in his biased 46 page decision, and then quickly realized that there would be no way that they could justify or support his decision if it was known that they were aware of the evidence from the trial. Thus the disappearing transcripts.

Regardless of whether this assumption is correct or not is purely irrelevant, simply because these Justices knowingly did not follow proper court procedure for the administration of Justice by proceeding to hear the appeal and rendering a decision which they did not have the guts to sign, without a review of the evidence from the trial. That in fact is what an appeal is suppose to address and it was not done.
The appeal was then appealed to Leave to Appeal Justices Finlayson, Weiler and O’Conner J.J. who disposed of it quickly with dismissal without reasons. Then on to the Supreme Court of Canada for another dismissal without reasons, and without consideration, and it was over.

To this point no one has been able to explain to me how it is possible to properly assess and review an appeal without reading and making reference to the sworn transcripts of evidence as provided by the participants at trial.

Do these Justice of the Courts possess some sort of psychic abilities which we are not aware of, or is this just another example of unquestionable overpowering authority comparable to what was encountered from public servants David Anderson and Frank Gelinas and unresponsive unaccountable governments, Municipal and Provincial.
All of what has transpired over the past 8 years was clearly brought into perspective at the pre trial prior to the Prohibition hearing of July 23, 2001, when after my lawyer had discussions with the presiding Judge and the acting Cr. Attorney, the Cr. Attorney proposed to dismiss the application, if I was agreeable to sign a 6 months Peace Bond. This proposal was conveyed to me outside of the court room by my lawyer, but my lawyer stated there was a problem and this matter could not be concluded that day. When I inquired as to what was the problem? My lawyer responded quote: “The court has to bring in another Cr. Attorney from Hamilton as senior Cr. Attorney John Ayre doesn’t want to have to explain to his next door neighbour Frank Gelinas why he did not prosecute the case.” unquote. At that point I could not believe what I had just been told, but with that astounding revelation, the light bulb flashed on, and it became quite apparent in retrospect the process which had evolved within the Justice System regarding our case.

This in my opinion is what happened. After Delhi Township Council declined to take appropriate action to my deputation October 28th, 1996 regarding Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas. I then requested that the O.P.P., February 1997 to investigate Conspiracy and Perjury of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas. When this was reviewed by Constable MacLean and Cr. Attorney Aicken,, no doubt it was taken to Cr. Attorney Ayre who advised to not proceed because his next door neighbour and friend was Mr. Gelinas, and the spin job began. No investigation. No grounds. No charges.

This request was then directed to O.P.P. London, letter of April 14th, 1997 and redirected to Det. Const. Robert Scott, O.P.P. Brantford who took it to Cr. Attorney Swanson who refused to file charges against Anderson and Gelinas. There we find another connection as I understand that Cr. Attorney Ayre was with the Court in Brantford prior to moving to Simcoe, so that most likely Cr. Attorney Swanson and Cr. Attorney Ayre were well known to each other so that all the bases were covered, so that all of the criminal activities were covered up, Justice Carvarzans’ decision was not placed into question and nothing happened to rock the boat.

Then it was on to our appeal to Divisional Court a court without jurisdiction approved by the courts to have our appeal heard and dismissed by 3 appeals Justices who didn’t bother to procure or read the sworn transcripts of evidence from the trial and proceeded to dismiss our appeal, then on to Ontario Court of Appeal, to Leave to Appeal and dismissal without reasons, and then to the Supreme Court of Canada for another dismissal without reasons and consideration.

When we review these facts of our case, what we seem to have, at least here in the Province of Ontario is a Justice System that operates like a good old boys and girls club, with a number one priority not the administration of Justice, but to cover-up for the mistakes and negligence of friends and associates. This has been a most unremarkable, pathetic experience for this family, to find out how our Justice System really works.

What possible incentive in this position of Public Trust, did these Justices have for this most pathetic performance?

In just 8 years, and thousands of dollars blown to the wind as well as a $98,000.00 judgment against our company because we lost the case seeking justice, along with enduring the stress of disgrace and ridicule to this family regarding our substandard ? products and our business, with each decision of the courts seeming to confirm it all to be true, in the end this business and family was spun and blocked at every avenue by the Police and the Justice system, and ultimately flushed down the drain like a terd in a toilet. And what have we learned from this? We have found that in our Canadian Justice system our Charter of Rights is a farce. There is no equality before the law. The reason for this is that our justice system has become government politically correct corrupted, which now provides selective justice before the law. If you become lucky enough to come before a Justice that will not play this game to protect the status quo of Government, you will receive justice, and if you are not lucky in this respect you will received what we received, injustice.

Since our case is only one small isolated case, if this horror story is any indication as to the performance of administration of justice within the Ontario Courts of Justice, we have some very, very serious problems which requires to be addressed in order to protect the integrity of the administration of Justice, and the Judicial system which is expected to properly serve all of the Public interest without pandering to the whims of government. Governments are not always right. If we cannot rely upon our Justices of the courts to apply the laws of our land equally and fairly, then this is not a democracy, but instead a democratic dictatorship without recourse.

We have now received a response, as acknowledged by O.C.C.O.P.S. January 9th, 2002 to our request to investigate of December 17th, 2001, the conduct of O.P.P. officers Simcoe detachment relative to the previous non response to investigate obstruction of justice and criminal activities. The letter from the O.P.P. Professional Standard Bureau dated February 12th, 2002, was as expected just one more O.P.P. spin job none response. See our response March 12, 2002

Thank God that we are living in the best country in the world. Was that Prime Minister Jean Chretien who said that?

I shall be requesting a Judicial inquiry into the performance of all of the Justices involved with our case, and further suggest that a public inquiry into the administration of Justice in Canada would be most appropriate.

Please be advised as a reminder as stated in my May 17th, 2000 letter to Federal Justice Minister Anne McClelland and Minister of the Attorney General Ontario James Flaherty that if nothing was done to resolve these outstanding issues, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed our case, all relevant information would be circulated publicly via the internet.

In that respect any interested party may view and evaluate this corrupted miscarriage of Justice on the internet at http://www.thecomplaintstation.com/

At the date of swearing of the “Information” we request that the courts review the enclosed documentation relevant to the appropriate sections of the Criminal Code and proceed with appropriate charges for “Conspiracy”, to illegal interference with business relations, fraud in respect to forged and falsified documents, as well as libel and perjury by the individuals named.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols, President
Nichols Gravel Limited

P.S. Stay tuned this is only the first episode of this law perverted horror story.
Relevant documentation supplied upon request.

c.c. Prime Minister Hon. Jean Chretien
c.c. Federal Justice Minister
c.c. Premier of Ontario
c.c. Ontario Minister Attorney General
c.c. M.P.P. Toby Barrett
c.c. C.B.C. Disclosure
c.c. W-Five
c.c. Fifth Estate
c.c. All Members of Council Norfolk and Haldimand County
c.c. Various Universities of Law
c.c. Law Society of Upper Canada
c.c. Ontario Trial Lawyers Association President, Mr. Gary Will

November 28, 2002 – Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs

April 22nd, 2010

November 22, 2002

Superior Court of Justice
Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Costs
File #27720 Extended Date November 28, 2002

ATTENTION: Assessment Officer Mr. Thomas

Dear Sir:

This letter shall clarify our Company’s position in respect to this Notice of Appointment to Assessment of Costs as filed by lawyers Peter Haney and Thomas Cline in the total amount of $57,314.31.

Our Company emphatically objects to this claim or any consideration or award granted for the following reasons:

1. Since the trial in May 1996, we have researched and confirmed conspiracy, perjury and falsified documents provided to the courts and to Justice Carvarzan by defendants of the Township of Delhi, David Anderson and Frank Gelinas. Justice Carvarzan dismissed our case and all claims based on this evidence.

2. Our Company’s right to due process of law was denied by the Ontario Provincial Police and Crown Attorneys Aicken and Swanson 1997 in response to our request for investigation and criminal charges, to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gelinas while our Company continued to appeal Justice Carvarzan’s decision.

3. We have further confirmed a mistrial with our appeal on 2 counts Firstly the courts approved by Justice Osborne at the request of Mr. Haney the transfer of our appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal where it had been properly filed, to a court without Jurisdiction, the Divisional Court in Hamilton. Secondly Justices H.J. Keenan, P.A. Cuming and W.P. Somers confirmed at the beginning of the appeal that they did not receive, and therefore review the transcripts of sworn evidence from the trial, prior to the appeal hearing, and then instructed my lawyer to proceed, and after a short hearing, whereby the defence was not required to speak or provide any evidence, and then after a short recess returned and dismissed our appeal without authority or lawful administration of prescribed court procedure quoting Justice Carvarzan’s decision almost word for word.

4. Most recently justice was again denied when Justice of the Peace Mitchel Baker declined to proceed with process with 16 private information filed May 30, 2002 for criminal charges to various individuals.

In respect to all of this information, we can now confirm that the administration of Justice ? that our Company received was in fact a complete farce, and what we in fact received instead was the administration of injustice.

Relative to all of this information which we are prepared to confirm, we respectfully request no consideration of this cost assessment, and hereby request under the Solicitors Act Section R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 15, s 10 under Special Circumstances that the previous Assessment of Cost of June 5, 1998 File # 1511194 be reassessed for consideration and dismissal of Judgment. It should also be noted that Mr. Haney contrary to the Solicitors Act did not provide an itemized statement for disbursements in the amount of $23,735.70 as required by law or an itemized statement of hours and related work on the case comparable to Mr. Cline’s account as rendered.

No this company and this family is not prepared to accept the approximately $360,000.00 loss as well as 8 years of aggravation, confrontation and discrimination in respect to this miscarriages of justice without recourse.

Since this corrupted merry go round started 8 years ago, we have not on one occasion received what we consider to be fair and just treatment or equality before the law, so that at this point we are proceeding as we previously stated, to expose the manipulation of the administration of justice. You may reference this horror story on our Internet Web site at www.injusticecanada.com

For your reference, please find:

1. September 20, 1995 Amended Statement of Claim Township of Delhi.
2. June 5, 1998 Mr. Canning Assessment Award of $97,470.20.
3. August 5, 1999 Paul Amy letter of explanation as to what transpired.
4. August 25, 2000 Notice of Garnishment to all Nichols Gravel Limited municipal customers.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols

c.c. Mr. Peter Haney
c.c. Mr. Thomas Cline

Township of Delhi – Direction to Cease Commercial Operations with Nichols Gravel Limited

April 22nd, 2010

I Letter February 13, 1996 with Report No. CA0-04-96 to Public Works Committee February 7, 1996. #1 Read more.

II Evidence at trial Mr. Gelinas Transcript Page 714 #5-30. #2  Read more.

It has been confirmed that there is no available confirmation whatsoever by Council in respect to this “Direction”.

III See F.O.I. Request Research of Records Sept 9 1996 Request #16-96 #4

For the record of all Council meetings here there were discussions concerning Nichols Gravel Limited. Response #3. In respect tot the sworn evidence provided at trial, it is clearly evident that none of these Council meeting dates provided by the Township Clerk under F.O.I. request 16-96 in any way correpond to the dates provided in evidence in court by Mr. Gelinas.

IV See Mr. Anderson’s testimony Page 988 #25.40 which states:

“towards the end of 1994 the Council provided us with direction” Read more.

Mr. Anderson’s evidence also failed to match or corespond to any of the F.O.I. Information Council meeting dates as identified, so that we can now confirm four different dates stated that “direction” was received from Council; August ‘94, August ‘95 (Mr. Gelinas), Fall of 1995 (Mr. Anderson), and F.O.I. request June 1995 and it has not been possible to confirm even one date as stated, let alone four different dates.

The evidence would indicate that this was Fairy Tale Time in the Ontario Court of Justice.

See testimony, Gary Nichols Transcript Pages 1230 and 1231 which confirms further falsity of fact in respect to testimony provided by Mrs. Gelinas and Mr. Anderson in Court. Read more.

In an unrelated but comparable situation, Mr. Gelinas and Mr. Anderson are held accountable for fraudulent and forged documents pertaining to Mr. Kalle’s wrongful dismissal case!

November 28, 1996 – Addendum

April 22nd, 2010

November 28, 2002

ADDENDUM

To our letter of September 20, 2002 to O.M.B. case worker Andy Dawang copied to the Premier’s office, the Minister of Natural Resources, Minister of the Environment and Minister of the Attorney General, the Toronto Sun, Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and the London Free Press

In respect to receiving no response excepting a letter dated October 10, 2002 and received October 17 from the O.M.B. confirming and in agreement to what I had stated in my September 20th letter, that no review of the O.M.B. Final Decision was allowed under the Aggregate Act, and further stating quote: “The Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for issuance of the license in compliance with, and/or fulfillment of the conditions imposed by the Board.” unquote. See letter #1

Please therefore be advised that we are proceeding as previously stated in our letter of March 15, 2002 to place all relative information on the internet and in addition, in respect to the failure of the M.N.R. and M.O.E. to comply with the O.M.B. final decision order of July 25, 2001, and the failure of Justice of the Peace Mitchel Baker to file “process” on our 16 Private Information for criminal charges, which brings the “obstruction” of Justice incidents to 7, counting refusal to file criminal charges in 1996 by Cr. Attorney Aicken, 1997 Cr. Attorney Swanson dismissal of our case by Justice Carvarzen 1996, dismissal of our appeal Divisional Court by Justices Keenan, Cummings and Somers J.J. 1999, dismissal of Leave to Appeal Without Reasons by Justices Finlayson Weiler and O’Conner 1999 and dismissal Without Reasons Supreme Court of Canada Justices L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel J.J. 2000

We shall proceed to release all information as follows:

1. The March 6, 2002 letter to M.P. Toby Barrett which received no response from Mr. Barrett.

2. Our application to the Ministry of the Environment for permit to take water March 12, 2002

3. Copy of Justice Carvarzan’s August 23, 1996 Decision.

4. Review of Justice Carvarzan’s 1996 decision and a breakdown of the falsity of fact based on Perjured evidence which in my opinion is 46 pages of speculative law perverted garbage.

5. Review of the appeal dismissal by Justices at Divisional Court and the further falsity of fact in law in this decision, as well as hearing our appeal without court Jurisdiction and without prior reference to the transcripts of evidence from the trial, stating that the transcripts were not received.

6. Review of numerous requests to O.P.P. to investigate including the lost transcripts which received the spin and file process from both the O.P.P. and the Appeal to O.C.C.O.P.S. for failure to investigate various requests to O.P.P. to investigate.

7. Further interference by O.P.P. to my individual rights under the Canadian Charter to “equality before the law” in respect to a warrant and gun seizure incident, concerning false information provided in witness statements which was identified as the same as provided at trial in 1996 by David Anderson and Frank Gelinas. A request to investigate to O.P.P. in this respect as well a request to investigate the irrational behavior of David Anderson which also was not investigated as confirmed through F.O.I.

8. Conspiracy to interfere with the Democratic electoral process with the personal defamation of Councillor Gary Nichols by then Mayor Roger Vermeulen and Councillor Dan VanLonderselle, Township of Delhi.

9. Conspiracy to entrapment to the defamation event in order to gain evidence to attempt to prove Gary Nichols and Nichols Gravel Limited are as one and the same.

10. The 1996 Conspiracy to Extortion and misappropriation of Public Funds of the Township of Delhi by the Mayor, C.A.O. and Director of Roads in respect to the overpayment for unitemized billing of services by the Township Solicitor in respect to defending the lawsuit with Nichols Gravel Limited which was requested to O.P.P. to be investigated, with no investigation. See Det. Scot September 16, 2001 letter #2.

11. The claim filed with the courts by Nichols Gravel Limited against the Township of Delhi, David Anderson and Frank Gelinas 1994.

12. The claim filed with the Courts by Nichols Gravel Limited against the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk, Eric Dhond’t and Nil Lambert. 1994.

13. The claim filed with the Courts by Nichols Gravel Limited against the Township of Norfolk Jamie Francisco, Winston Oostenburg and Hector Verhoeve. 2000.

14. Review one by one the 16 Private Informations filed for “process” which Justice of the Peace Baker stated did not meet the test for criminal charges.

15. The conspiracy by lawyers Peter Haney, G. Brimblecombe and Thomas Cline to obtain information under “False Pretense” in respect to an Examination in Aid of Execution February 1 2001 of Gary Nichols for the purpose of a Judgment to garnishment of a Nichols numbered company

In our experience, after 8 years of attempting to find Justice and finding without exception obstruction of Justice, I believe as a citizen, I have an obligation to expose to the Public, the point to which our society has digressed in the Province of Ontario with manipulation, and conspiracy to cover up the corruption in 3 levels of government, the Police and the Justice System. All of these actions are addressed under criminal code section 122 and 123 as fraud, and breach of trust through suppression of information, by all of the conspirators in and outside the justice system who suppressed information to cover up the negligent actions.

In my opinion, the obstruction of Justice was the direct and end result of the Police, the Cr. Attorneys and the other Justices conspiring to protect Justice Carvarzan’s pathetic decision and reputation. “No duty of care owed.” No accountability by anyone!

In respect to the huge amount of documentation collected through my various investigations, I project that it will take approximately 1 year to place all information on the internet.

This ADDEMUM, the September 20 letter, the March 15, 2002 letter, my letter to Justice of the Peace M. Baker and his response July 30, 2002 may be found on our website at www.injusticecanada.com

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols

c.c. Premier of Ontario Hon. Ernie Eves
c.c. Attorney General of Ontario Hon. David Young
c.c. Solicitor General of Ontario Hon. Robert Runciman
c.c. Haldimand County Council
c.c. Norfolk County Council
c.c. Frank Cowan Insurance
c.c. Law Society of Upper Canada

Why Were We Disqualified?

April 22nd, 2010

March 15, 2002

Ministry of the Attorney General Ontario
Ontario Court of Justice (Criminal)
530 Queensway St. West
SIMCOE, Ontario

Attention: Judge/Justice of the Peace or Whom it May Concern

Private Information #1

This “information” sworn to Ministry of Transportation Ontario for:

Conspiracy and Fraud as Related to Forged Government Documents To The Illegal Interference with Business Relations of Nichols Gravel Limited

In 1989 Nichols Gravel Limited sub contracted to Huron Construction to supply Granular A for shoulders to #3 Highway M.T.O. contract 89-66. This aggregate had to meet M.T.O. specification, and on the second day of the project, we were informed that our gravel from Pit. 3 had failed to meet the petrographic stone hardness specification based on 2 test results, and a stop work order was issued by M.T.O. which resulted in the loss to Nichols Gravel of this $100,000.00 contract. Further investigation revealed that a young lady named “Mara” did the testing and that she had received her training under Chris Rodgers of M.T.O. the previous year and that this was her first experience testing on her own at the M.T.O. London Geotechnical Laboratory.

A letter of protest was written to the Minister of Highways regarding the arbitrary actions of M.T.O. staff London who refused to conduct further testing before cancellation of contract. See Letter April 14th, 1997, O.P.P. Staff Sergeant Erskine enclosure, Item #5

M.T.O. staff were not accustomed to having their negligent actions criticized, and I believe this resulted in animosity to Nichols Gravel Limited and developed into a conspiracy to retaliate against Nichols Gravel Limited. In support of this contention I offer the following evidence.

1.

Our gravel was disqualified based on 2 incomplete test results by an inexperienced lab technician. No comparative testing done by an experienced M.T.O. Lab technician before

cancellation of contract on August 18th, 1989. NOTE: Petrographic test results not completed and published until August 21st, 1989 after cancellation stop work order had been issued. See test #1

When there was objection from Nichols Gravel Limited to the August 18th, 1989 M.T.O. stop work order and the testing which provoked the order, M.T.O. staff Chris Rodgers, C.M. Bond, Cy Barber and others conspired to selective Granular B pit face sampling in order to confirm the accuracy of their original 2 test results.

This allowed Cy Barber to visually look at the pit face and select from specific areas where shaley aggregate was present in order to ensure that Nichols aggregate would exceed the Petrographic limit number of 200. However this was slightly overdone as the test results revealed in the September 22nd, 1989 letter compared to the original 2 tests confirm a huge increase in P.N. values over the original 2 test results further confirming the conspiracy of deception in an attempt to cover for staff’s negligent actions.

The stop work order was issued based on only 2 tests of Granular A – Contract 89-66 did not specify the use of Granular B, therefore there should have been no sampling or testing from the pit face of uncrushed Granular B aggregate. It should also be noted that there were 5 separate stockpiles in the pit for this project. Rather than take selective samples from the pit face, what M.T.O. should have done was test the existing 3 stockpiles which had not been tested as a correlation to the first 2 tests. The fact that this was not done and selective pit run samples were taken from the pit face confirms the intent of the conspiracy to cover-up for the negligent inaccurate testing and the arbitrary stop work order issued by M.T.O..

Later testing by Professor Hudec from the University of Windsor who had taught Chris Rodgers of M.T.O., and George Woda, retired from M.T.O. confirmed from testing the same stockpiles that our gravel had met the required specification, then the cover-up began when all later testing by M.T.O., the petrographic number values continued to increase to become worse than the previous test results. See letter September 22nd, 1989 enclosure April 14th, 1997 O.P.P. S.S. Erskine #1

2.

The second conspired fraudulent production occurred when in 1990 officials of M.T.O. conspired to illegal interference with business relations, when they became aware of our intent to purchase another pit property adjacent to our Pit 2 in Burford Township.

This property owner, Robert Spriet had previously requested that M.T.O. test his property for gravel, and in May of 1990 M.T.O. suddenly appeared and requested permission to proceed to dig test holes, which permission Mr. Spriet granted. I noted at the time that M.T.O. was digging test holes, but I had no contact or discussion with any M.T.O. staff at that time.

On July 19th, 1990 Nichols Gravel Limited concluded an agreement for land purchase from Mr. and Mrs. Spriet owners of R & L Tobacco Acres Ltd. approximately one and a half months after M.T.O. dug test holes on the Spriet property.
It was not until the dispute with Delhi Township and Mr. Andersons’ October 1993 Aggregate Sources List Policy that we became aware of the conspiracy of M.T.O. officials, when we received through a F.O.I. Request in December 1993 a copy from Delhi Township files of a 1991 A.S.L. 91-06 which had listed the log hole testing done on the property of R & L Tobacco Acres in May 1990 but which had been listed under
G. Nicholls name without our knowledge or permission and circulated publicly throughout the Province for then a period of 3 years. It is not possible to calculate the damage to our business due to the manipulated inaccurate test result information in this document. I immediately called Cy Barber M.T.O. London and demanded that this pit be retested, and a man was at our pit from London within 2 hours to take samples. The testing of December 1993 confirmed that our gravel was acceptable for Granular A, further confirming the manipulated damaging information on the 1991 A.S.L. for ASL B13-140, which indicated (N) not acceptable. See copy of May 1st log hole testing by D.W. Mantle under G. Nicholls name. This was a fraud because the property owner at the time of M.T.O Log Hole Testing was R & L Tobacco Acres Ltd.. April 14th, 1997 O.P.P. S.S .Erskine enclosure #10

Further evidence of conspiracy to injure by M.T.O. is found in the comparison record for Pits 2 and 4 listed on M.T.O. A.S.L. as B13-140. It should be noted that Pit 2 consisting of approximately 38 acres was established in 1980 and Pit 4 in 1990 with a total of 47 acres adjacent to, and directly south of Pit 2. Pit 4 was log hole tested in May 1990 the following spring after the August 1989 dispute at Pit 3 over M.T.O. testing contract 89-66. Total acreage of Pits 2 and 4 is 85 acres.

In respect to the M.T.O. testing record entered in evidence at trial May 1996 by M.T.O. Mr. Katona (retired) please note the average of petrographic numbers on this deposit prior to 1990 at 118.5 and the huge increase in petrographic number values to 177.8 after the 1989 testing dispute with M.T.O. all in the same deposit encompassing 85 acres.

This obviously confirms the manipulated testing of M.T.O. as it is not possible to have this huge variation in one small deposit. See M.T.O. testing record comparison. Mr. Katona Court Evidence 1996.

The testing manipulation is further confirmed on the Granular A February 4th, 1994 test results with stone hardness micro Deval test at 11.4% and Los Angeles abrasion test at 8%. It is not possible to have these 2 tests this low, and have a Petrographic number test this high at 210.6. Definitely a product elimination scheme by M.T.O..

What further confirms the manipulation, is an M.T.O. test result on concrete stone from Pit 2 B13-140 completed September 13th, 1993 from gravel from the same stockpile as the December 2nd, 1993 sampling which confirmed a petrographic number of 119.4 H.L. and concrete, actually 91.2% lower than the February 4th, 1994 completed test result H.L. and

concrete at 210.6. This extreme variation also is not possible, same pile, same pit. See M.T.O. test result February 4, 1994 and September 14th, 1993.
See copy of our Lawyers’ letter confirming the date of closing on property purchase and registry date of transfer of legal ownership of land July 19th, 1990 to Nichols Gravel Limited. See letter August 13th, 1990. April 14th, 1997 O.P.P. S.S. Erskine enclosure #10.

The May 1990 testing was first listed for A.S.L. M.T.O. contract 90-95 issued February 6 1991 and contained additional fraudulent information as it listed the source owner as
Gary Nicholls. Our Lawyer’s letter August 13, 1990 confirms the property was purchased and registered to Nichols Gravel Limited.

This conspired illegal interference with fraudulent information involved Chris Rodgers, C.M. Bond, Cy Barber and D.W. Mantle, the District Engineer and Mr. Richard Puccini who also was the author of the July 1990 fraudulent letter regarding performance testing #3 Highway.

The conspiracy to illegal interference is confirmed by the production and distribution of these falsified documents and manipulated testing information in respect to Nichols Gravel Limited as published on the M.T.O. 1991 ASL 91-06. See 1991 A.S.L.

See copy M.T.O. December 1993 Test Results. Date stamped February 4th, 1994

This incident confirms:
1. Falsified and Forged documents.
2. Fraud through the production and public distribution of these documents.
3. Conspiracy to illegal interference with business relations through the production and public circulation of these documents without our knowledge or authorization, which in fact eliminated this source from competing for M.T.O. contracts in the area until it was retested and approved for Granular A December 1993.

See Documents:

1. Copy of log hole testing by D.W. Mantle May 1990.
2. Copy of Lawyers August 13th, 1990 letter confirming legal date of purchase through registration of land on title.
3. Copy of M.T.O. ASL 90-95
4. Copy of M.T.O. A.S.L. 1991 91-06 with inaccurate information yellow marked Granular A unacceptable.
5. Copy of December 1993 M.T.O. test result confirming this source acceptable for Granular A.

Further note that the distribution of information from the May 1990 M.T.O. Log Hole Testing found on Aggregate Sources List 90-95 and A.S.L. 91-06 and others up to December 1993, as listed under the Nichols name without our knowledge, permission or authorization, is in fact an infringement of security and privacy rights under Privacy and Information Legislation further confirming this conspired scheme by officials of Ministry of Transportation Ontario.

3.

The third conspired fraudulent production by M.T.O. was the July 9th, 1990 letter addressed to Gary Nichols by Deputy Director of M.T.O. London, Mr. Richard
Puccini and copied to M.P.P. Robert Nixon and M.P.P. Gordon Miller. See letter
enclosure #8 of April 14th, 1997 letter O.P.P. S.S. Erskine.This letter described sampling and performance testing on Nichols gravel retrieved from the shoulders of #3 Highway south of Delhi as related to contract 89-66 for which Nichols gravel was rejected based on 2 incomplete test results by M.T.O.. We were not aware at that time of the false statements of fact presented in this letter, and became aware of this only when we received documentation from M.T.O. relative to disclosure evidence to be presented in Court in May 1996 by Delhi Township lawyers to confirm that our aggregate was substandard. The documentation revealed, that in fact gravel from Wisemans’ pit and T.C.G. pit had been hauled and placed on top of our gravel therefore the two gravels had been mixed together and it made it quite impossible to retrieve a sample of our gravel from the road shoulders for testing. Compaction testing records also further confirmed this fact. See Record. Enclosure 8 BWhen Chris Rodgers of M.T.O. was put on the stand in court May 1996, under cross examination by our lawyer, rather than Perjure himself he admitted that M.T.O. was unable to retrieve samples of Nichols gravel from #3 Highway April, 1990 and therefore no testing was done on our material. This further confirmed Mr. Puccinis’ letter to be a fraudulent and forged production without basis in truth or fact. See Chris Rodgers cross examination in court. April 14th, 1997 letter enclosure #4 Page 10, 12, 13.

This fraudulent production was further promoted by the Head of London Geo technical C.M. Bond in his letter of January 31st, 1991, when he makes reference to Mr. Puccinis’ letter of July 9th, 1990 and the performance testing (that never happened) on Nichols gravel from shoulders of #3 Highway.

As of 89/11/17 in the memorandum to Chris Rodgers from Bob Cook confirming that Nichols gravel at #3 Highway had been covered over certainly at the date of this letter January 31, 1991. All of these people, including Mr. Puccini, Chris Rodgers, C.M. Bond and Cy Barber and staff were well aware that no testing had been done on Nichols gravel as described in Mr. Puccinis’ letter and Mr. Bonds’ letter, but they nevertheless continued to promote this fraudulent ass covering deception, resulting in this information further impacting Nichols Gravel Limited when David Anderson in 1993 circulated these letters to Delhi Township Council to conclude our gravel was not suitable for Twp. use. See letter January 31st, 1991. Page 1, last paragraph.

It should also be noted, that although Justice Carvarzan heard Chris Rodgers testimony in respect to no testing having been performed on Nichols gravel from shoulders #3 Highway, contrary to Mr. Puccinis’ statements in his July 9th, 1990 letter, and therefore there could be no assessment of performance of Nichols gravel on that project, Justice Carvarzan disregarded this evidence and made reference to statements of the Defences expert Mr. Zoltan Katona who made a statement in this respect to quality and performance of Nichols Gravel Pit #3. See Katona transcript Page 1065 #15 & 20.

On page 1048 #5 Mr. Katona made the statement quote: “I have to depend on M.T.O. information.” unquote. There was absolutely no evidence provided in respect to Geotechnical consultant investigations either by Delhi Township or M.T.O. in respect to the cause of any road failure or to confirm that any gravel supplied from Nichols Gravel

Limited was substandard or was identified as the cause of failure. All evidence presented was based on speculation and assumption of fact. There was no investigation to performance by M.T.O. There was no investigation to performance by Delhi Township, therefore in respect to the fact that Mr. Katona relied only on M.T.O. information Mr. Katona’s statements are in fact false. This evidence was quoted by Justice Carvarzan Page 21 first paragraph “Reasons”. See Chris Rodgers letter 90/01/26 warning that all tests should be done before issuance of stop work order in respect to only 2 incomplete test results in 1989 Nichols Pit 3.

On Page 1020 #15 In.-Ch. Mr. Katona when questioned if he was a petrographer, stated quote: “No, I am not a petrographer.” unquote, but under questioning in Cr. Examination Page 1141 #20 & 25 whether or not he could distinguish between T.C.G. granular A and Nichols granular A on #3 Highway where Nichols gravel had been covered over, Mr. Katona replied that he could tell the difference quote: “If I did a petrographic analysis I could tell the difference.” unquote.
This was a most amazing response in respect to the fact that Mr. Katona had previously admitted that he was not a qualified petrographer, and also by the fact that he could distinguish the difference between 2 gravels from 2 different sources, whereas the most qualified person under M.T.O. employment in petrography Chris Rodgers determined with the mixing of the 2 gravels it would be quite impossible to provide reliable and accurate test results, and no testing was done on Nichols gravel from #3 Highway. See Chris Rodgers transcript April 14th, 1997 O.P.P. letter #4 Pages 9 and 10 We must therefore conclude that Mr. Katonas’ statements in this respect are also in fact false.

It should further be noted that the Appeals Court Justices Keenan, Somers, and Cumming J.J. relied on this false evidence contained in Justice Carvarzans’ decision, without the benefit of reference to the transcripts for clarification and quoted Justice Carvarzan in respect to “Bonafide concerns about field performance in the appellant gravel pits.” See Page 2 Appeal Decision. There were in fact no bonafide concerns as there was no evidence whatsoever presented by the Defence in respect to proper geotechnical investigation to confirm the cause of any problem of any project complained of, including M.T.O. contract 89-66.

Webster dictionary explains bonafide as quote: “true, genuine, sincerely” unquote. I suggest these Ontario Court Justices used the wrong word description. What we really have here in fact are lies, deception, and misrepresentation. I suggest this does not provide bonafide anything.

This false information and the perception taken by all of these Ontario Court Justices in respect to Mr. Puccinis’ letter and Mr. Katonas’ statements created a further detrimental impact to Nichols Gravel Limited with the dismissal of our case relative to the wrong information relied upon which is confirmed by the statements issued in the respective decisions.

***  [what does this 2. refer to?  is there a 1.?  I couldn’t find it easily.]
2. However I do have a concern as to the truthfulness of some of Mr. Rodgers other statements in court in particular:


Cross Examination:

#1. Page 5. Q: And one of the consultants Mr. Nichols used was a fellow named George Woda?
A: Yes.
Q: Is he a former boss?
A: No. I worked with him.

Comment:
My information is that George Woda was previously head of the M.T.O. Geo Technical Section Downsview, and that would indicate that he was Chris Rodgers boss. Further to that when George Woda retired, Mr. Rodgers assumed that same position.
#2. Page 5 Q: And another consultant Mr. Nichols hired was a fellow named Prof. Hudec from the University of Windsor?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know him?
A: Yes.
Q: It is fair to say that he is generally known and respected by you and others as a very experienced person and knowledgeable person in the field of petrography?
A: No I would say he was all these things in the area of evaluation of aggregates but not specifically in the petrography area.
Comment:
This statement is absolutely contrary to Report EM-91 Petrographic Examination of Aggregate and Concrete in Ontario by Chris Rodgers. April 14th, 1997 Letter enclosure #3.  On page 11 of this report first paragraph describes an Ontario funded evaluation on petrographic procedures which was commissioned to study reports by Professor Hudec.This would appear to confirm that the Provincial Government had a high regard for Professor Hudecs’ expertise in respect to petrographic evaluation and testing and must have considered him an expert in this field.On page 27, there are 3 separate references to Professor Hudecs’ research and expertise.

This certainly would confirm Mr. Rodgers statement in court to be false. See Professor Hudecs’ petrograghic analysis March 25th, 1992 Nichols Gravel Limited Pit #3, Con.9, Burford Twp., and further extensive analyses to comparative M.T.O. testing April 9th, 1996.

#3. Page 11. Q: All right, can I ask that Exhibit #1 tab 12 to be placed before this witness please? Mr. Rodgers I am showing you a letter from Mr. Richard Puccini?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know him?
A: No I don’t. I don’t believe he works for the Ministry of Transportation anymore.
Comment:

In Mr. Puccinis’ July 9th, 1990 letter he refers to performance testing by his staff. We confirm that Mr. Rodgers was at #3 Highway on April 18th, 1990 to make observations from which we assume he prepared a report that must have arrived at the office of Mr. Puccini. “There was no copy of such a report provided in disclosure.” It would seem logical that Mr. Rodgers and Mr. Puccini would have had some communication prior to release of Mr. Puccinis’ July 9th, 1990 letter. It would therefore also seem logical that Chris Rodgers would know Mr. Puccini.

Our information is that Mr. Puccini was still employed by M.T.O. late 1997 and we believe that he remains to this day employed by M.T.O.

I request that incidents 1, 2, and 3 as listed be investigated to ensure no falsity of fact was provided in court by Mr. Rodgers.

The Fourth conspired fraud involved not only M.T.O. officials, but also various officials of the Region and Haldimand-Norfolk as a result of a road tour organized by David Anderson and M.T.O. Winston Oostenbrug to observe project suspected of not having performed as expected where Nichols aggregate had been used previously. The participants on March 9th 1994 were M.T.O. Chris Rodgers, Winston Oostenbrug, David Anderson Delhi Township, Jamie Francisco Norfolk Township Nil Lambert Haldimand-Norfolk Director of Roads.
The conspired fraud was the production of falsified documents and test results regarding samples of stone chips taken by Winston Oostenbrug and Jamie Francisco at Norfolk Township yard Road 45 with all of the road tour participants present with the source owner identified as Gary Nichols.

In order to identify the conspired fraud we must first review the false information contained on the M.T.O. Sample Data Sheets of March 9th, 1994. See April 14th 1997 Letter #8.

Identified Information:

1. Source Owner: Gary Nichols. Wrong! See M.N.R. Pit License to Nichols Gravel Limited

2. County: Region of Haldimand-Norfolk Burford Twp. Lot 1 & 2, Con.9. Wrong! Burford Township is located in Brant County.

3. Source Location: Pit #3. Wrong! Nichols Gravel Limited has never produced stone chips from aggregate from this pit. By M.T.O. own testing there is high content of soft shale not suitable as this gravel would not meet the P.N. hardness test for stone. See M.T.O. comment on 1991 A.S.L. this Pit #3 not suitable for any M.T.O. use.

Quite amazing how dumb all of these people are, and how stupid they think this family is, after having been in this business 51 years at this point in time.

To further confirm the falsity of this exercise See F.O.I. response 1-96, April 3rd, 1996 from Norfolk Township indicating the record for stone chips purchased for the 2 years previous to the March 9th, 1994 sampling.

How was it determined that the ¼ “ stone chip purchased from Nichols Gravel Limited in 1992 or 1993 was not mixed with stone purchased from Gary Mussel?

The record indicates that 3/8” stone was purchased from Waterford Sand & Gravel in 1992 and Norfolk Quarries and Oxford Sand & Gravel in 1993. No 3/8” stone was purchased from Nichols Gravel Limited in either of those 2 previous years, therefore it would be quite impossible to retrieve samples of Nichols 3/8” stone from Norfolk Township yard on March 9th 1994.

This definitely confirms the “conspiracy”, the forged documents and falsity and fraud of this exercise by all the participants of this road tour as confirmed by these records F.O.I. #1-96 April 3rd, 1996.

It is a fact, of which M.T.O. Rodgers and Oostenbrug were well aware, you cannot identify the source of aggregate for testing unless samples are taken at the source further confirming the conspired intentional attempt to injure and adversely impact our company.

The problems experienced by Nichols Gravel Limited with the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk and Mr. Eric D’hond’t date back to incidents in 1980 and 1983 in particular when Mr. D’hond’t and Nil Lambert conspired to cancel a tender contract for supply of gravel on Road 25.
Mr. Lambert prior to the start of the project had without permission entered Nichols Gravel Limited Pit #2 and retrieved samples of Granular A for testing. This gravel was tested, found to not meet specifications, and then Eric D’hond’t called to request that the Region be allowed to take samples of the stockpile. At this point I was unaware, that the Region had already conducted testing on Nichols stockpile, however I had noticed 3 holes that had been dug into the top of the stockpile a week or so previously.

When Mr. D’hond’t and Mr. Lambert arrived at the pit, Mr. Lambert grabbed his shovel and bag out of the car and started climbing up the stockpile toward the 3 holes that were still visible. At that point the light bulb flashed on, and I asked Mr. Lambert where he was going, and he replied, “I am going to take some samples,” to which I replied, “No, you are not, as that is not the properly prescribed method of sampling a stockpile.” Mr. Lambert then became quite indignant and angry and stated quote: “I have been sampling and testing gravel for 25 years, and no one is going to tell me how to take gravel samples.” unquote.

I then reminded Mr. Lambert that he was standing on Nichols Gravel Limited property, and that he would properly sample this stockpile, or he could put his shovel and bag along with his body back in the car and get his ass off of the property and down the road. Mr. D’hond’t then intervened stating that they required samples from the stockpile and that they would take them under my supervision.

Samples were then taken and about 1 week later Eric D’hond’t and Paul Swick drove into the pit Friday 11 a.m. and provided test results that indicated that Nichols gravel had failed to meet specifications and that the Region would purchase from the next low bid which was Cayuga Materials.

The next morning we crushed a new pile of Granular A, and delivered samples to our consultant Dominion Soils Waterloo for testing and on Monday morning provided a test result to Commissioner of Engineering W.C. McDowell which indicated that Nichols gravel met the specifications of Tender. Mr. McDowell instructed that the trucks stop hauling gravel from Cayuga Materials, and the next morning Eric D’hond’t sent Nil Lambert to Pit 2 to sample the new pile, which I declined him permission to sample. Mr. D’hond’t called about 1 hour later to insist that they required samples from the new pile to which I agreed, only if my consultant was present to view their sampling procedures and to take comparative samples to ensure there was no manipulation of test results by the Region, with a further condition that all of the sampling to be done under the Supervision of M.T.O. District Engineer, Frank Clarke.

This was arranged and sampling was done to the prescribed methods, and after everyone had left I asked Lou Maeir our consultant to look at the test results by the Region from the old stockpile. Mr. Maeir quickly identified that the Region had not tested our gravel to the form 1010 specification as required on the Tender, and in fact by the Regions’ own testing Nichols gravel had met the specification of Tender. See Region Test results and letter. See evaluation and comments Dominion Soils

When this disgusting deception was revealed and confirmed, Nichols Gravel Limited filed litigation in respect to this incident and a 1980 incident whereby the Region verbally accepted our Tender bid, ordered the gravel to be prepared, and then declined to purchase the material by changing the specifications of the road project, to sand stabilization after contract award and preparation of aggregate for the contract. This case came before the Hon. Judge Pringle who awarded in favour of our company. The gravel test rigging incident was so bad that the Region settled this claim for damages out of court. The fact that the court awarded in favour of Nichols Gravel Limited and that the Region settled the gravel test rigging incident out of court, confirms the “conspiracy” and the illegal interference to business relations by Eric D’hond’t and Nil Lambert. Various elected Regional Councils rewarded Mr. D’hond’t and Mr. Lambert for their manipulative criminal activities by promoting them to the senior positions of Commissioner of Engineering and Director of Roads respectively. This provided the authority to further manipulate and conspire to injure Nichols Gravel Limited as resulted in 1994 and thereafter with restricted limestone only granular A Tenders, and manipulation of Winter Sand purchases as confirmed by F.O.I. response 97-07 and cancellation of Nichols Tender Bid 1994. In respect to the May 31st, 1994 adoption of report ERD-24/94 by the H-N Regional Engineering Committee which stated quote: “Accordingly with the poor performance of the material supplied in 1993 and the provisions of the Region purchasing policy Schedule C-95 (d) staff cannot recommend the purchasing of any granular materials from the low bidder Nichols Gravel Limited of Delhi, Ontario.” unquote. See Report. See Golder report Rd. H-N 19 1994. See my presentation to Regional Council. See Newspaper articles. See F.O.I. request record of Granular A purchased by the Region which confirm not one dollars worth of gravel purchased 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, which confirms the conspiracy to bankrupt Nichols Gravel Limited by Lambert and D’hond’t.

This conspiracy to illegal interference to business relations continued to evolve through 1989 when the Haldimand-Norfolk Region implemented a new Corporate Purchasing Policy and Robert Davies Commissioner of Engineering refused to comply with it in order to further discriminate and defer work to other aggregate suppliers other than Nichols Gravel Limited. This was confirmed by an internal investigation by C.A.O. Charles Douglas when he brought forward a motion which was approved by Regional Council on September 26, 1991. See letters October 2, 1991. And Council resolution Quote: “That the quotation and tendering procedures set out in Regional by-law 206-89 be strictly followed.” uquote.

The conspiracy and discrimination further expanded after a dispute arose in 1993 with Delhi Public Works Superintendent David Anderson who organized a conspiracy to completely shut Nichols Gravel Limited out of the work. This conspiracy in particular involved David Anderson, Officials of M.T.O. Chris Rodgers, Winston Oostenbrug, H-N Region Commissioner of Engineering Eric D’Hond’t, H-N Director of Roads Nil Lambert, and Norfolk Township Director of Public Works Jamie Francisco and others. On March 9th, 1994 there was a witch hunt road tour which involved all of these individuals, which concluded with another fraudulent presentation with samples of stone chips taken at Norfolk Township yard and identified as Gary Nichols Pit 3 as the source. See sample sheet March 9th, 1994 document. Previous to this in October 1993 David Anderson had succeeded in getting Delhi Council approval for an Aggregate Sources List Policy whereby he circulated to Council the fraudulent M.T.O. documents, the 1991 Aggregate Source List and Mr. Puccinis’ forged letter in order to convince Council that Nichols Gravel was substandard and not suitable for Township use.
At that point the adoption of that policy completely eliminated the only taxpaying commercial pit operation in Delhi Township from competing for Township work. Had these fraudulent documents not been available and provided by Winston Oostenbrug of M.T.O., Mr. David Anderson would not have been able to accomplish this elimination scheme, and there most likely would have been no lawsuits between Nichols Gravel Limited and Delhi Township because of the deception and fraud which was promoted by Anderson and Gelinas based on this falsified information from M.T.O.

4. It is a fact that M.T.O. Senior Supervisor Winston Oostenbrug became a major participant in the conspiracy with various municipal officials of the Region of Haldimand-Norfolk to the illegal interference and elimination of Nichols Gravel Limited from the right to free enterprise competition for municipal contracts in our service area of Haldimand-Norfolk, Brant and Oxford Counties. See letter Brant County.

Please reference the various events involving M.T.O. Senior Supervisor Winston Oostenbrug:

1. He recommended to Mr. David Anderson the Aggregate Sources List Policy adopted by Delhi Township in 1993. See David Andersons transcript.
2. He attended the March 9th, 1994 witch hunt road tour.
3. He conspired with other members of this road tour at the end of the road tour the falsified stone chip testing at Norfolk Township yard to take stone chip samples and designate the source as Gary Nichols Gravel Pit #3 with the help of Norfolk road supervisor Jamie Francisco of Norfolk Township.
4. He attended the Haldimand-Norfolk Engineering Committee meeting of May 23, 1994 in support of Eric D’Hond’t and Nil Lambert for the recommendation to cancel $100,000.00 of Nichols Gravel Limited low bids for Granular A. See meeting minutes.
5. He conspired with Jamie Francisco Norfolk Township to cancel our tender low bid for supply Granular A 1995 and tested only 2 of the 4 sources listed on the Tender. Then wrote a fraudulent intimidating letter to Norfolk Council advising that our Pits 1 & 3 were not acceptable when in fact Pit 1 was shown as an acceptable source on the A.S.L. 94-04 and had not been tested. See Letters.
6. He proceeded to further libel Nichols Gravel Limited business and products to the Press July 12th, 1995 in support of David Andersons’ Church St., Delhi incident where the police were called to remove a Nichols Gravel Limited truck from a construction site. See newspaper article and see A.S.L.
7. In 1995 Mr. Oostenbrug also succeeded to intimidate municipalities in Brant County who declined to deal with our company even though we operated 3 pits and paid business tax in Brant County. See letter Brant County March 13th, 1996.

When it was confirmed on the March 1994 Aggregate Sources List that Nichols aggregate was acceptable and this “new” Policy was not going to serve the elimination scheme, Anderson and Gelinas resorted to plan B which was the “Direction” from Council which cannot be verified by resolution, therefore was hearsay information and had no valid authority for enforcement in law, but continued to be enforced until December 31st, 2000 even after the dismissal September 28th, 2000 by the Supreme Court of Canada of our case against Delhi Township.

In order to describe the magnitude of this huge conspiracy to bankrupt and eliminate Nichols Gravel Limited which transpired after the March 1994 road tour, please review the correlation of events thereafter which impacted our company, our business and this family.

1. March 9th, 1994 conspired fraudulent stone chip sampling at Norfolk Twp. Yard, Rd. 45 by M.T.O. Chris Rodgers, Winston Oostenbrug, David Anderson, Nil Lambert and Jamie Francisco, which confirm that these people all had a plan to get Nichols Gravel Limited for something somehow, someway, as this was the end of the road tour and their last chance to come up with something negative to impact Nichols Gravel. Ref. #1.

2.  May 4th, 1994 False and fraudulent statements to the press by Delhi Twp. C.A.O. Frank Gelinas based on David Andersons’ false and forged document, Township of Delhi Summary of 1994 Aggregate Quotations, with respect to Class 5 Aggregate designation and acceptability on the M.T.O. Aggregate Source List 91-06.

Comment: There is no such designation for Class 5 aggregate on any Aggregate Sources List produced by Ministry of Transportation in Southern Ontario. Ref. #2 Oostenbrugs’ letter. See Gary Nichols May 16th, 1994 letter of response to the false statements published in the Delhi News Record. See newspaper.

3.  May 9th, 1994 Norfolk Township cancelled all of Nichols Gravel Limited low bids for Granular A without testing. No reason provided. Contract loss $97,215.60. Ref. Tender Bids.

4. May 31st, 1994 Haldimand-Norfolk Region cancelled all of Nichols Gravel Limited low bids Granular A Tender as recommended by Eric D’Hond’t and Nil Lambert citing problems on H-N Reg. Rd. 19 spring breakup where Nichols gravel was used for reconstruction in 1993. Contract loss $100,000.00.
This section of road was asphalt paved the summer of 1994 after the problem, and has performed well ever since with no breakup or pothole patches visible, which indicates to me that if this kind of surface pavement had been applied in the first place, instead of application of double surface stone chips in the rain, there would have been no road surface failure and no problem to scapegoat onto Nichols Gravel Limited for the Regions own negligence. Ref. The Golder Consultant report which indicates negligent construction methods by the Region as the cause of the problem, and not Nichols gravel. See Newspaper Article.

5. March 3rd, 1995 H-N Director of Roads Nil Lambert had J. Emery Consultants sample and test Nichols gravel retrieved from a watermain roadcut H-N Road 42 where Brantford Engineering had placed Nichols gravel the previous fall contrary to the Regions direction that they could not use Nichols gravel. The gravel was still frozen at this time of year which resulted in using a pick to break it free, which crushed the stones and altered the gravel with the result that it did not meet specifications when tested. Mr. Lambert then directed Brantford Eng. to remove Nichols gravel from the roadcut and replace with limestone aggregate. This gravel used in the roadcut was from a stockpile previously approved by M.T.O. and had also been tested by M.G.L Consultants prior to placing in the roadcut by Brantford Eng. and was found acceptable. It was decided by Nichols Gravel Limited and Brantford Engineering to conduct further testing at the roadcut before the major expense of removal and replacement was incurred. Samples were taken by independent consultants of Brantford Eng. and Nichols Gravel then tested and found to meet the required specifications. Nichols gravel was not removed from the roadcut and another fraudulent conspiracy by the Region to cause embarrassment, and detract contractors from dealing with Nichols Gravel Limited was exposed. What a most pathetic performance!

6. March 7th, 1995 Delhi Township cancelled Nichols contract purchase order from winter sand without discussion, when Nichols Gravel Limited refused to allow Mussels trucks to haul from Pit #3 for the Twp., due to a company decision to have no dealings with Mussels trucking due to a previous loss of contract with Norfolk Twp. when Councillor Gary Mussels interfered and prevented contract award to Nichols Gravel Limited and was in conflict of interest as he wanted his trucks to haul the stone for the stone chip supply contract.
At no time did Nichols Gravel Limited refuse to load other hired trucks or Delhi Twp. trucks. This breach of Tender was taken to court by Nichols Gravel Limited in respect to losses, and recent information would indicate that acting Deputy Judge Lados who dismissed the action against the Twp. may have had a conflict of interest, as my information indicates that he had previously acted in his capacity as lawyer, for the Mayor of Delhi Twp., Roger Vermeulen.

7. May 31st, 1995 Conspiracy by M.T.O. Winston Ostenbrug and Jamie Francisco Norfolk Twp. to cancel $117,413.00 Nichols Gravel Limited low bid Granular A and Class 5 chips Tender. M.T.O. again manipulated test results and failed to test 2 of the sources listed on the Tender. Oostenbrug then wrote an intimidating letter to Norfolk Twp. advising that M.T.O. supported the decision not to use any aggregate from Nichols Gravel Limited when there was no information whatsoever to confirm that the pits not tested did not meet specification. In this letter Oostenbrug libeled our company in respect to current information on the M.T.O. Aggregate Sources List. 94-04. See letter.

8. June 27th, 1995 David Anderson, Delhi Twp. Public works Superintendent prevented Elgin Construction from using Nichols gravel on the Church St. reconstruction in Delhi and called the police to remove a Nichols dump truck from the job site. Anderson suspected Perjury identified as statements in court as to why Nichols gravel was rejected, do not compare to statements to police at the time of the incident, as contained in the Police report. See newspaper account. See Anderson transcript. See Police report.

9. June 26, 1995 Bethel Road Brantford Twp. signs of distress occurred in spring from this 1994 project where Nichols gravel from Pit #3 had been placed by Wraymar Construction, and immediately Nichols gravel was suspect due to the adverse publicity circulated by M.T.O., H-N Region and Delhi and Norfolk Twp. regarding Nichols gravel. A proper consultant Geo technical investigation was conducted with sampling and testing Nichols gravel from the roadbed with the conclusion that Nichols gravel was not the problem. M.T.O. Winston Oostenbrug was most interested but I expect disappointed with these results. Please also note the Petrographic Number Test at 140 well within the specification limit of 200 contrary to comparable testing by M.T.O. on this same pit in the same time period.

10. July 12th, 1995 M.T.O. Oostenbrug again libeled our company and products when he provided false information to the press that was published in respect to Nichols Gravel Limited pit designations and acceptability on the M.T.O. Aggregate Sources List 94-04. See Newspaper.

11. October 16th, 1995 Delhi Township failed to honour Nichols Gravel Limited low bids on the H-N Regional Winter Sand quotation. Gary Nichols charged with trespassing by David Anderson when he entered the old Windham pit to inquire as to why sand was purchased from another supplier at higher cost. The courts dismissed the trespass charge for lack of evidence. Cost to defend against this absolute stupidity $1200.00. See charge and lawyers bill.

12. Dec. 6, 1995, deputation by Gary Nichols to Delhi Public Works Committee requesting clarification on winter sand purchase. C.A.O. Frank Gelinas advised committee not to respond and that he would respond in a couple of weeks. See presentation January 22nd, 1996. Letter to Toby Barrett.

13. February 7th, 1996 C.A.O. Gelinas response with Council “Direction” not to have any further business dealings with Nichols Gravel Limited. See report response to deputation of December 6, 1995. No record of Council resolution. This illegal “Direction” enforced until Delhi Twp. was dissolved December 31st, 2000 by restructuring.

14. May 6th, 1996 8 ½ days in court Nichols Gravel Limited v. Township of Delhi David Anderson and Frank Gelinas. Review of transcripts of evidence revealed numerous false statements by Anderson and Gelinas in Court

15. September 18th, 1996 Letter to the Editor. See letter.

16. February 13th, 1997 Request O.P.P. Simoce to investigate suspected Conspiracy and Perjury, Anderson and Gelinas. No investigation. Evidence provided by Gary Nichols reviewed by Const. Thomas MacLean and Cr. Attorney Lois Aicken. Reported no grounds to lay criminal charges. See O.P.P. Report.

17. April 14th, 1997 Request O.P.P. Staff Sergeant Erskine, London to investigate. M.T.O. and Anderson and Gelinas.

18. April 14th, 1997 Request transferred to O.P.P. Det. Const. Robert Scott, Brantford who began 6 months investigation which was completed and reported September 7th, 1997 with no grounds to lay Conspiracy and Perjury charges to Anderson and Gelinas, as Cr. Attorney Swanson refused to file charges and instructed Det. Scott not to investigate M.T.O. but to leave it alone, then took the golden handshake and retired at age 54.
Find enclosed my letter to the editor account of the September 11th, 1997 meeting with Det. Const. Robert Scott and Staff Sergeant Beecroft after completion of the investigation previously requested and directed to Staff Sergeant Erskine. You will note that Crown Attorney Swanson directed Det. Const Scott not to investigate M.T.O. therefore there was no investigation. See letter to Editor September 16th, 1997. See newspaper. See reconstructed final report May 1999 after F.O.I request. Very bad smell here!

19. November 1998 Justice Carvarzan decision appealed to Ontario Court of Appeal. In the interim period Justice Osborne mistakenly(?) or intentionally approved the transfer of our appeal of Justice Carvanzans’ decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal where it had been properly filed, to Divisional Court Hamilton, who we later found out after our appeal had been heard that this court had in fact no jurisdiction to hear our case as the claim was in excess of $25,000.00, so that in fact our appeal was illegally heard in the wrong court. Unbelievable!

20. June 3rd, 1999 Appeal heard in Hamilton after our February court date had been deferred and cancelled by “Darren”, I believe in order to provide additional time to hand pick the Justices that would give our company the deep six. At the start of the hearing Justices Keenan, Somers, and Cumming J.J. informed our lawyer that they had not received the transcripts of evidence from the trial, and then instructed our lawyer Mr. Brooks to proceed as they could use the appeal books as reference. This was also quite unbelievable.
In my perception these Justices were not interested in hearing our evidence. Did not require the Defence to speak and dismissed our case quoting:Justice Carvarzans’ decision almost word for word, stating they found no error in law with Justice Carvarzans’ decision.

21. July 16th, 1999 Request to Investigate to O.P.P. Insp.Denckert the lost transcripts.

22. November 24, 1999 Leave to Appeal “dismissed” without reasons. Justices Finlayson J.A., Weiler J.A., O Conner J.A..

23. May 17th, 2000 Letter to Federal Justice Minister Anne McClelland and Ontario Attorney General James Flaherty appealing to someone to address this long term law perverted discrimination to our business and this family which stress was causing an impact on the health of this family and in particular my wife.

24. May 31st, 2000 Net results of May 17th, 2000 Letter? A Prohibition Warrant Served under Criminal Code Section 111 acting on false evidence in witness statements received by O.P.P. Det. Cost. Rob Scot from David Anderson, Frank Gelinas and John Harrison in respect to a statement in my letter which was perceived to be threatening, but did not directly or indirectly name any of these individuals.

25. June 2000 H-N Regional Chairman John Harrison requests and receives O.P.P. police protection for Councillors at Regional council meetings attended by Regional Councillor Gary Nichols. What an absolute farce!
26. September 6, 2000 H-N Councillor Nichols requests investigation of illegal dumping of solid waste Tom Howe Regional Landfill site. Another O.P.P. spin job. No investigation.

27. September 28th, 2000 Supreme Court of Canada decision Nichols Gravel Limited v Township of Delhi David Anderson and Frank Gelinas “dismissed” without reasons or consideration.

28. November 6, 2000, Delhi Twp. council meeting Councillor Gary Nichols under personal attack in respect to recent Supreme Court of Canada decision. Libeled by Mayor Roger Vermeulen and Councillor Dan VanLondersele in the weekly local newspaper, Wednesday edition prior to municipal election the following Monday.

29. November 14th, 2000 H-N Councillor Nichols requests O.P.P. to investigate in the Public Interest Patronage contract award by David Anderson and Eric D’Hond’t on stone chip tender. O.P.P. spin job no investigation.

30. November 13th, 2000 Municipal election, Councillor Gary Nichols political contribution to Public Service ended, placing next to last in the polls after having served 3 years on both Township of Delhi and H-N Regional council.

31. Claim for defamation and libel filed against Roger Vermeulen, Dan VanLondersele, the Delhi News Record, Simcoe Reformer, and the Brantford Expositor.

32. July 11, 2001 Request to investigate to Det. Const. Rob Scot by Gary Nichols of identified false statements provided in court by David Anderson and Frank Gelinas also identified false statements by John Harrison. See letter Det. Scot response in August after the July 23rd court Prohibition hearing. No investigation.

33. July 23rd, 2001 Prohibition Application “dismissed” conditional upon Gary Nichols signing a 6 months Peace Bond.

34. We shall at a later date address the conspiracy by corporate staff of both Haldimand and Norfolk Counties to suppress information for requests through Freedom of Information, in order to cover-up for the further conspiracy to illegal interference with business relations of Nichols Gravel Limited by David Anderson, Eric D’hond’t and Jamie Francisco of the previous Region of Haldimand-Norfolk for purchase of winter sand from other than the low bidder Nichols Gravel Limited in November, December year 2000.

35. Conclusion to Correlation of Events.

This entire law perverted horror story began with a libel by Frank Gelinas and David Anderson in 1994 in respect to the business and products of Nichols Gravel Limited, which reflected on the honesty and integrity of this family, and because of unaccountable, unresponsive governments and the same kind of justice system this provided the tools to conspiring Councillors and staff to promote this huge unjust deception to cover for all of their negligent actions and in the end provide the ultimate conclusion with another libel and disgrace on this family at the November 6, 2000 Delhi Twp. Council meeting with the support of the Supreme Court of Canada dismissal which provided a conclusion for
not Justice but Injustice.

Thanks to the Ontario Provincial Government and the Haldimand-Norfolk Transition Board all of these conspirators managed to be hired into the new government of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties, so that the conspiracy to illegal interference has continued this past year namely from Eric D’Hond’t, David Anderson, Frank Gelinas, Chris Baird, Bill Cridland and in particular Jamie Francisco.

The Haldimand-Norfolk Transition Board and Senior Officials of the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs given the responsibility for the restructuring of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, took action, or inaction contrary to the Public Interest, and were therefore in Breach of the Public Trust when they failed to respond to a letter dated March 13th, 2000 received at the Transition Board office and dated stamped that date. See Letter.

This Breach of Trust was provoked when this letter and a request for deputation from Dwayne Nichols and Darryl Nichols along with 79 pages of documentation which clearly defined the negligent misconduct and discrimination to Nichols Gravel Limited by Delhi Township staff David Anderson and Frank Gelinas, and condoned by Council, was not even acknowledged as having been received by the Transition Board. This letter clearly provided examples of the waste of tax dollars by Delhi Township from 1994 to 1999 of approximately $246,473.00 in order to enforce their discrimination on Nichols Gravel Limited. The Transition Board in order to have a “seamless” transition, ignored the problem rather than direct and require Delhi Township to follow an open competitive Purchasing Policy in the restructuring year 2000 and proceeded to approve the Delhi Township budget which in fact supported the discrimination and waste of tax dollars that continued. And then to add insult to injury having been made fully aware of the problems created by the various Regional Staff the Transition Board proceeded to hire and appoint these people to key managerial positions which acted to ensure that the discrimination to Nichols Gravel Limited would continue as in fact it has in this past year of 2001. These actions did in fact make the Transition Board a party to the discrimination and conspiracy to illegal interference to Nichols Gravel Limited, and I shall be filing another “information” in this respect when I have completed documentation for presentation.

In respect to the Town of Haldimand Act October 1999 it would appear that the H-N Transition Board was negligent and failed to comply and perform their duties in reference to 21 Sub Section 5 (A) and (B) when they took no appropriate action in response to the letter from Dwayne and Darryl Nichols after clearly having been made aware of the waste and inefficiency contrary to the Public Interest, which they in turn approved in the Township of Delhi year 2000 budget, which in turn supported the continued discrimination by Delhi Township to Nichols Gravel Limited until December 31st, 2000 when Delhi Twp. ceased to exist.

In Summary

If after reading this presentation there is anyone who can conclude, as did Justice Carvarzan, Appeals Justices Keenan, Somers, and Cummings J.J. and Leave to Appeal Justices Finlayson, O Connor, and Weiler and Supreme Court of Canada Justices L’Heureux-Dubé, Bastarache and LeBel J.J., that there was no problem, there has been no discrimination , no “conspiracy” to illegal interference to business relations, no libel or fraud in respect to comments about Nichols Gravel Limited and aggregate products, and no damage to this company and family as a result of the various actions by Anderson and Gelinas, and various other H-N Regional and M.T.O. officials, and that this company and this family received lawful, fair and just treatment before the courts, then I suggest these persons have a very serious problem with perception of truth and fact, and should immediately check into a psychiatric clinic for a mental assessment, in order to determine their level of mental stability and ability to reason.

Of course this would not apply to Justices of the Courts as there seems to be no requirement that they be accountable for their actions, but the news media and the press may have an interest in asking a few questions as to how these court decisions concerning this case, provided for the proper and fair administration of law and justice.

In respect to receiving 8 years of this horrific spin job of injustice and the related stress relative to the destruction of my wife’s health as referred to in my May 17th, 2000 letter to Federal Justice Minister Anne McClelland and Attorney General of Ontario James Flaherty, this has now been confirmed by the fact that my wife had undergone a bowel operation last September and 2 breast cancer operations before Christmas 2001 and has just finished 16 radiation treatments in this fight for survival.

In regard to all of the evidence herein provided, I hereby request that this matter now be investigated subject to Criminal Code Section 122 and 123 and any other applicable section of the Criminal Code in respect to the long term far reaching “Conspiracy” and discrimination for the purpose of illegal interference with business relations of Nichols Gravel Limited through libel, and false statements, and fraud directly related to manipulation of test results and production and distribution of forged and falsified government documents by:

Conspirators: Co-conspirators:

Mr. Helmet Welker, M.T.O. Mr. David Anderson
Mr. Richard Puccini, M.T.O Mr. Frank Gelinas
Mr. Chris Rodgers, M.T.O. Mr. Eric D’hond’t
Mr. Winston Oostenbrug, M.T.O. Mr. Nil Lambert
Mr. Cy Barber, M.T.O. Retired Mr. Robert Davies
Mr. C. M.Bond, M.T.O Retired Mr. Jamie Francisco
Mr. D. W. Mantle, M.T.O. Mr. John Harrison
Mr. Z. Katona, M.T.O. Retired

Please further be advised that this is our final appeal to the justice system to respond to this gross deception and miscarriage of justice to which a non response is not acceptable. In the event that we receive no immediate response confirming that these matters will now be properly addressed, we shall as previously stated make all related information public as directed to the news media and interested parties via the internet at HTTP://www.thecomplaintstation.com/.

Sincerely,

Gary Nichols, Pres.
Nichols Gravel Limited

c.c. Ministry of Transportation Ontario Legal Service Branch
c.c. Federal Minister of Justice
c.c. Premier of Ontario
c.c. Ontario Minister of the Attorney General
c.c. Chief Justice Supreme Court of Canada, Rt. Hon. Madam Beverly McLachlin
c.c. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Hon. Patrick LaSage
c.c. President, Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, Mr. Gary Will
c.c. M.P.P. Toby Barrett
c.c. Norfolk and Haldimand Councils