David Anderson – Examples of Perjury and Fraud

April 22nd, 2010

In the following PDF files, you will see examples with supporting evidence of Mr. David Anderson’s perjury and fraud.

  • David Anderson claims under oath, that Ontario Hydro provided back fill material at no cost, and yet Mr. Anderson approved a price of $24 per load from Ontario Hydro. See the court transcript, the Township of Delhi letter and the Invoice from Ontario Hydro for over $8,000 in this first pdf file. Read more.
  • Mr. David Anderson claimed, under oath, that past problems had inspired a change in the tendering process regarding “stone chips” from “Supply” to “Supply and Apply”. When pressed for examples, no records could be located. View this next PDF file to view the various inconsistencies, and the path of cover-ups perpetrated by Mr. Anderson. Read more.
  • Mr. David Anderson’s claims under oath take a waffling. He claims to have used, in the summer of 1993, a document which bears a date stamp of February 1994. Why couldn’t he provide documentary evidence that such a list existed in 1993? Read the transcripts! Read more.
  • Mr. David Anderson confirms that Class 5 Aggregate failed specification and was disqualified however the record shows that 852.78 tonne of Class 5 was purchased anyway in contravention of quotation conditions! Read more.
  • After police involvement, Mr. David Anderson changed his under oath statement as to why Nicholl’s Gravel was rejected! Read more.
  • Mr. Anderson doesn’t know his stuff? Here he lies about sieve designations! Read more.
  • Mr. Anderson misrepresents his working experience, knowledge and authority while working for the Town of Ajax! Read more.
  • Final Frauds and Misrepresentations: Mr. Anderson makes reference to non-existent reports [according to the staff of the supposed generator of said reports]. Mr. Anderson contradicts himself and his prior testimony … and the real story regarding the Delhi Arena Parking Lot! Read more.

Our July 1999 Appeal

April 22nd, 2010

Appeal – July 1999

Please review this extremely clear and concise statement of fact concerning this case on the motion for Leave to Appeal to Court For Ontario.  Filed July 29, 1999.

After reading this document, ask yourself this question …

What was the reason that this motion for Leave to Appeal was dismissed without reasons or consideration?

The most obvious reason would be the embarrassment caused by the admission that the case was improperly directed to a court without jurisdiction by Justice Osbornes’ approval.

New Additions!

In respect to the dismissal without Reasons by the Ontario Court of Leave to Appeal, we can only conclude that the Justices could not dispute or respond to Mr. Falconers’ excellent Factum and correlation of events to the Case.

Frank Gelinas – Examples of Perjury and Fraud

April 22nd, 2010

In the following PDF files, you will see examples with supporting evidence of Mr. Frank Gelinas’ perjury and fraud.

  • Mr. Gelinas lies about MTO Aggregate Sources List information, about what denotes “acceptable” and “unacceptable”. Mr. Gelinas also denied making any comment to a local reporter despite the quote attributed to him in the newspaper! Read more.
  • Mr. Gelinas can’t recall Council Meeting dates? What about content? Read an in-depth report regarding testimony on these things.
  • Mr Gelinas produces a FALSIFIED document containing FRAUDULENT information! Read more.

September 22 Update

April 22nd, 2010

September 20, 2002

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

Dear Sir:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Gary Nichols

Additional Documentations:

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

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

Review – Appeal August 23, 1996 Decision – Part I

April 22nd, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of the Facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 2 of the Nichols Quarry Story

April 22nd, 2010

Part II of the Story

For The Very Latest News …  see below …

July 2004 – Latest Developments

April 22nd, 2010

March 15, 2002 – Private Information #1

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 B

When 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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

3. 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/.


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

Supreme Court of Canada – Decision

April 22nd, 2010


series1 ref-50 decision

Ontario Court of Justice – Appeal Dismissal

February 5th, 2010

series1 ref-48 appeal dismissal