Sunday, April 10, 2016
1) From Ken Cressey
2) Dear Jeanine
3) North Frontenac
4) The Beginning of the End Pg.1
5) Jeanine's Journal the Last Months of Her Life
6) Timeline of Events as they happened
7) Speech To The Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on General Government
8) Ontario Ombudsman Investigation
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Reasonable PersonA phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
The Crown Attorneys office of Ontario believes that a person who lies, falsifies documents, violates acts is considered normal.
In law, a reasonable person (historically reasonable man) or The man on the Clapham omnibus is a hypothetical person of legal fiction whose is ultimately an anthropomorphic representation of the body care standards crafted by the courts and communicated through case law and jury instructions. Strictly according to the fiction, it is misconceived for a party to seek evidence from actual people in order to establish how the reasonable man would have acted or what he would have foreseen. This person's character and care conduct under any common set of facts, is decided through reasoning of good practice or policy—or "learned" permitting there is a compelling consensus of public opinion—by high courts. In some practices, for circumstances arising from an uncommon set of facts, this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public
Sunday, November 23, 2014
This was the place where we would spend our retirement years together, at least that is what we thought.
Their homepage is here http://www.northfrontenac.com/
June 16 1944 - October 25 2009
In Sept 2016 I Ken Cressey Jeanines Husband have been diagnosed with lung cancer. The biopsy showed crystalline silica. I am soon to follow her .
Ontario cares little for its people, just its stakeholders.
The site is located here
From the time that Jeanine started having respiratory problems from breathing the dust, the Township was made aware of what was happening. On multiple occasions they were told of what was taking place yet nothing was done.
On March 12 2009 This letter was sent to council.
We never received any written documentation but did receive a call from the Mayor at the time Ron Maguire stating there was nothing they could do.
Members of the council: Councillor Fred Perry ; Councillor Elaine Gunsinger
and Councillor Lonnie Watkins : Deputy Mayor Jim Beam Councillor Bob
Olmstead : and Councillor Wayne Good
On August 06/09 we placed a call directly to the township telling them of the placement of a rock crusher directly across the road from the house, The noise and dust were atrocious yet we were told that the company could do what they wanted and there was nothing we could do. That was told to us by Tammy McQuigge. We asked for a by law officer to come and view what was going on but were denied as well as refusing to take the complaint.
To further this on the day that Jeanine died I called 911 for help, the fire department sent one single fireman to help. This is a letter sent to Steve Riddell asking what the protocol for a 911 call was.
Subject: Volunteer Fireman
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:15:45 -0400Mr. Riddell
In an emergency our goal is to mitigate the emergency by making the scene safe, and conduct an investigation and report our findings if necessary to the office of the Fire Marshall.
All Fire Fighters are considered employees of the Municipality, currently we have 55 Fire Fighters in total on the roster, 18 at the Snow Road fire hall. Ken if you should have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Steve Riddell North Frontenac Fire Chief and Director of Emergency Services firstname.lastname@example.org (613)279-2468 (613)279-3056 (fax)
I had never know this but explains why the fireman was with the coroner. This has been kept from me since she died. Had I not asked for this report I still would have never know. The fireman or Dept have never said a word or the Coroner about this. I was sent one untrained fireman on a heart attack call.
The Township or their agents have never called me or spoken to me since my wife died. I will never understand why the township turned their backs on citizens in the community when it is their responsibility for the protection and security of the communities.
Property Rights http://www.northfrontenac.com/council-mayors-message.html
I wonder why they never brought up what was done to my wife and myself when our property lost close to $40,000.00 dollars when it sold.
No compensation of any kind by anyone or Ministry.
Taken from The Web Page of North Frontenac
Help Us, Help You!
The Township of North Frontenac refused to do their requirement in acting on the Municipal Act.
The site is located in an area designated as a hamlet in 2009
A 911 call an emergency call is basically ignored by the Township in which case they gave no real aid. The almighty dollar comes first.
Yep we live in a free society free to plunder, maim and kill.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Congratulations on the appointment as Premier of Ontario.
I wish this letter was on a more happy note but I am afraid it is not. What I wish to say involved
the MNR, a gravel pit owner (Crain’s Construction) and the Township of North Frontenac. The
first thing I should also mention is that I am glad to hear the aggregate resource act is continuing
to be reviewed.
The story which was also read by the former Premier McGuinty and with his help the
investigation started. The story is about my dear late wife, who suffered from the actions of
Crain’s Construction and the complacency of the MNR and the Township of North Frontenac.
The MNR who is responsible for the various acts that regulate pits and quarries have done nothing
but deceive and misrepresent the public. As you can see that I said my late wife since she died
shortly after being exposed to dust from an aggregate operation, operated by Crain’s Construction
and licenced by the MNR.
I will try to keep this as short as possible since this story has no end.
In April 2008 my wife and I purchased a home in North Frontenac which unknown to us was
located near a gravel pit. There were no operations that year except in late October when trucks
came in and removed crushed stone that was on the site. This went on for about two weeks, and in
that time my wife and I had asked for a meeting with the Township Planner Brenda Defosse. We
were inquiring as to why the land the gravel pit was located on was zoned residential. We further
wanted the sites appearance brought up to a better standard, since this was devaluating our home.
This home was to be our final resting place for our retirement but as it turned out it was a death
trap. In the time that followed the Ministry was asked by Brenda Defosse about the site since we
had legitimate complaints. Dust from the site was blowing onto our property as well as the sites
appearance was giving us great concern.
Brenda Defosse then notified us about what the Ministry had said and gave us the information to
contact Justin Bryant the MNR officer whom she spoke to. My wife and I sent a letter to Justin
Bryant and asked the question again. In his answer he said that there was no problem with the site.
We asked for site plans and stressed our views about this site. There were no site plans and his
answer was that when they were made available I could get them under the freedom of
We spoke to the ward’s councilmen Bob Olmstead at least three times about this site, he said he
would take it up with the council. We never heard a word from the council concerning our
Later when the Township wanted to sell a right of way that would have a direct bearing on our
issues, my wife and I objected and again stated our concerns. We further had stated that we had
issues with the gravel pit owner Wilbur Crane and that those issues had not been dealt with. We
also had stated that the operation would have a direct bearing on our quality of life.
We asked for an environmental assessment. In a phone call from the Mayor at the time Ron
Maguire he stated that our request for an environmental assessment was denied and that there was
nothing they could do.
No one listened to what we had to say and just before April of 2009 Mr. Wilbur Crane himself
came to our home and assured my wife and myself that mitigation measures would be in place.
From the time they started working in this site till they left they did absolutely nothing. No dust
control no care about noise.
When Crain’s started working on the site at the end of April 2009 my wife began choking and
coughing. After two weeks of this I knew there was something wrong. My wife was a beautiful
healthy woman, there was no reason for what was taking place. We went to see her Medical
Practioner in Sharbot Lake where they had tests done for her. They believed the dust was causing
the respiratory problems she was having.
We informed the Township planner Brenda Defosse of what was taking place but nothing was
done by the Township as Municipal Act requires them to do so. Also on August 06/09 my wife and
I called the Township where we spoke to Tammy McQuigge who was the assistant CAO . We
asked for the by-law officer to come to our home and investigate our complaint. She refused to
send the by-law officer or notify any authority to deal with the situation. From my understanding
there were no other communications from the Township to the MNR concerning what was taking
place. Why I do not know, after my wife’s death the Township has refused to answer any
In my letter to Premier McGuinty I had asked that the matter be brought before the Attorney
Generals office since this matter involved the MNR. That did not happen and the MNR were
notified thru Minister Jeffery. In the time that followed the MNR did their own investigation, an
investigation which is nothing more than a tactic to do nothing.
An investigation which started with Justin Bryant then transferred to Barry Wilson both of the
MNR. Barry Wilson as far as I know led the investigation. An investigation that was based on the
evidence that I provided.
The evidence supplied by me is listed below.
Communications from the Township of North Frontenac. (E-mails)
An affidavit about Wilbur Cranes Visit to our home and what he said.
A medical letter advising my wife to relocate from her home.
A journal describing her health as time went by.
A photograph of bruising caused by her choking.
And my testimony
As well as a letter I asked to be read to the court.
All this documentation was handed over to an MNR prosecutor Mr. J. Van De Kleut
On the eve of the set trial date, I received a phone call from the MNR prosecutor Mr. J. Van De
Kleut. In that conversation I was discussing what was admissible in court. Mr. J. Van De Kleut was
interrupted by a phone call. The gravel pit owner just happened to call and arranged a plea bargain
all within in two minutes. In the minutes of the trial now Mr. J. Van De Kleut dismisses all the
evidence and fabricates a new story. The conversation I had was about if I was attending the
hearing and the evidence I was submitting. There was no way that the MNR wanted me to testify .
Since her death I have attended the Aggregate Resources Act review and spoke to the committee
regarding what took place.
Recently I have asked for the compliance reports under the freedom of information acts and have
received documents which the MNR had in their possession. Falsified compliance reports in their
possession stamped by the MNR. Documents that the MNR’s own investigation failed to turn up.
Documents which if the MNR had acted in a responsible manner the gravel pit owner’s licence
would have been suspended or charged as an offence.
The Ministry is negligent in their duties as the issuer of these licences as well as the gravel pit
owner and the Township. Given assurances by Mr. Wilbur Crain directly to my wife and myself
yet nothing was every done.
I watched my wife choke and choke from the dust until her heart gave out. She was a perfectly
happy healthy 65 year old woman who never had a respiratory problem in her life. The dust
contained crystalline silica a listed carcinogen which has grave consequences if inhaled. Because of
the actions of the gravel pit owner not only was my wife’s health put in jeopardy she was also
denied the normal use of her property, and as well depreciated the value of our home.
I am not financially wealthy enough to fight the Governments or the pit owner in the courts and I
have consulted quite a few. The answer given to me is you cannot win when the Government has
unlimited resources namely your tax dollars. The cost to myself would be astronomical and as one
lawyer said he doubts that I would live through it.
I have suffered the most terrible punishment for the MNR to fill its coffers and a gravel pit owner
to line his pockets. He states that quite clearly in the court transcript.
I would like to ask for a public enquiry into this matter since there will be no closure in my life
concerning the events that took place.
In other people’s words this is nothing less than Negligent Homicide in which the MNR the
Townships of North Frontenac are accessories.
The Aggregate Resources Act, the Environmental Protections act, the Municipal act. All ignored or
She suffered from April 2009 till her death in October 2009 after moving from Quebec in 2008.
This Government no longer represents the people but have gone to great lengths to promote and
protect the interests of their stakeholders.
Monday, May 19, 2014
I will put in General the events together so that what took place is easier to understand. I will be putting further documents that I have received. I now have the full understanding of what a Government represents and I assure you it is not the voting public. But as the Representative from one of the Ministries has put it it is my opinion.
Have patience with the time it takes to write this story and its outcome but the story will be written I assure the people that knew my wife and myself as well as the readers that have made comments to continue.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
· R. v. Titchner (1961,
I can understand a one time event, an error in judgment but not continuous and prolonged . There was a full understanding of the concerns and all ignored prior to any work done on the site.
Aggregate Recourses Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90a08_e.htm
Environmental Protection Act http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90e19_e.htm
Letter To the Ministry of Natural Resources
Letter to Council North Frontenac
Letter From Ministry of the Environment http://deathanddustmystory.blogspot.ca/2011/07/page-6.html
Falsified Compliance Reports
An example of how the Law or Acts are applied to workers who hold Trade Licences. How an individual who sees his Dues marked up by 300%. Not a choice a demand by this institution. But the main point is the Law and Acts no longer represent the people but rather the interests of the Government. We no longer have a system that is based on fairness and accessibility but one of cost and greed.
I don't pay my due as stated I am subject to the fines and costs. Interesting that you can harm people cause pain and suffering to people, ignore the acts and regulations but as a stakeholder you get "no you shouldn't do that". We no longer have a fair and just Society but one solely based on greed and intimidation.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
It has been sometime since I have put any more documentation up to show just what occurred and the responses that were given to me. By adding more and more documentation it will only cause more confusion than I am sure it already has. The only way to really understand is to put it in its proper forum from start to finish. So in the next months I will be trying to put the hole story in its perspective with links to the various articles or documentation. I will begin writing soon. I haven't given up on my search for the truth or the Parties involved. The Liberal Party of Ontario now cares little towards the Health and welfare of its citizens and is bent on doing what they want to do excluding the people that will be directly involved in their plans.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
This is a rough draft of my response to the Ombudsman it is not in order but as soon as I can I will edit the response to the pages of the report.
My Comments of the Investigation as well as a few photos.
I have read the document and have found many things in it that I am not in agreement with.
In Reference to Page 3 of the Ombudsman Report
The first issue is; I did not contact the MNR, Brenda Defosse Clerk/Planning Coordinator of the Township of North Frontenac spoke to the MNR, and as a courtesy she gave me Justin Bryant’s E mail. My response was to his decision on the Crain site.
On Feb 13 2009 Justin Bryant clearly states
I personally have visited this site for matters related to the licence application and have not completed a formal licence audit of the site yet. This licensee is required to erect a sign at each entrance and exit to the site and to keep dust down to a minimum. I will notify the licensee of these deficiencies and have them corrected.
I believe that this statement says it all.
MAY 27 2009 As stated in my email Dated February 13, 2009; The Crain’s Construction pit in Snow Road Station has had a licence since 2007.
A site plan has not been approved for the licenced site yet. When a site plan is approved for the site I will let you know and you can submit a request under the Freedom of information and privacy protection act (FIPPA) to obtain a copy.
Below Site Plan Applications
The reason this is shown; it is part of the agreement that that all operaters of Pits or Quarries agree to. This document can be obtained at the MNR website.
Notice the Red Highlighted Text.
Site Plans Applications
All applications for an aggregate permit must have a site plan that is prepared in accordance with Section 1.0 Site Plan Standards for the category being applied for under the Provincial Standards.
The site plan is the primary tool that controls the operation and rehabilitation of all pits and quarries. The permit tee is legally bound to operate and rehabilitate the site in accordance with the site plan.
In general, site plans must identify:
Aggregate Permit Applications: Site Plan Standards
Every aggregate permit application must be accompanied by a site plan that complies
with the Aggregate Resources of Ontario Provincial Standards for the category of
application being applied for. The provisions of a site plan may vary the Operational
Standards (e.g. minimum setback requirements, fencing). The site plan is the primary
mechanism to control activities on the site and must be legally enforceable.
In this section; The Township wanted to sell the right of way to two parties one Party was Crain,s. By the statements of the ARA there would have had to be an amendment prior to the selling of the right of way. The complaint that my wife and i filed with the Township over the sale would have accompanied the amendment. See Below the Document sent to Township. (Mayor and Council)
The expansion of the Gravel Pit and Requirements
Changes to Operations
Over time there may be a need to make changes to licences/permit conditions or site plans. These could be as simple as a change in address or corporate name, or more complicated, such as a change in extraction depth or the amount of aggregate that can be removed from a site in a given year. Amendments to site plans or licence/permit conditions can be requested by either the licensee/permittee or by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
My wife and I filed an objection to this expansion that was sent to the Township Planner to be read in Council. This document would be associated with A.R.A.
Mayor & Council
I would like to bring to your attention our concerns about the Extraction Agreement re aggregate pit at Snow Road.
We believe that if the road allowance is opened between the Crain Pit and the Gemmill Pit it would exacerbate the problem with noise and dust.
Our home is directly across the pit on the 509, which we already have issues with, which have not been resolved yet.
We believe that if the road allowance is removed, that the dust and noise from Gemmill’s Pit would funnel down through the area directly to our home,
increasing the amount of dust and noise.
We would like an environmental assessment done prior to the extraction agreement, since this would have a direct impact on our home and our quality of life.
Ken & Jeanine Cressey
My understanding was a site plan must accompany the licence application or within 6 months of the licence being issued and can be extended to one year. Failure to comply would result in the licence being revoked.
There was no site plan available as of 2012
Other Provincial and Federal Legislation Affecting Aggregate Extraction
The issuance of a permit under the Aggregate Resources Act does not relieve the individual or company from meeting the requirements of other agencies and applicable legislation. Aggregate operations may also require additional information or approvals under other legislation, both during the application stage and throughout the life of the operation. Examples of other legislation include the Endangered Species Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act.
Under the Provincial Environment Protection Act
"adverse effect" means one or more of,
(a) impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it,
(b) injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life,
(c) harm or material discomfort to any person,
(d) an adverse effect on the health of any person,
(e) impairment of the safety of any person,
(f) rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for human use,
(g) loss of enjoyment of normal use of property, and
(h) interference with the normal conduct of business; ("conséquence préjudiciable")
contaminant" means any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of any of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect; ("contaminant")
In the EPA not one charge
The Ministry of The Environment has this on their web site
The Ministry of the Environment is responsible for protecting clean and safe air, land and water to ensure healthy communities, ecological protection and sustainable development for present and future generations of Ontarians.
Had I called the MOE they in turn would have turned this over to the MNR because of an agreement between the MNR and the MOE which basically states that since the MNR regulate pits and quarries it is their jurisdiction and as such the MNR is the Lead Agency while the MOE is only for support.
The MNR does not state any of the above in fact they ignore it.
In This Statement Related to the Charges brought forward.
We initially went to the Township
They The Township notified the MNR of our complaint.
We were given the Email of an Officer of the MNR where we stated our complaint again.
We asked for a site plan from the MNR but has of 2012 there was still no site plan.
We filed an objection on the selling of the right of way and again stated our complaints again, and further stating it would effect our quality of life.
Assurances that noise and dust would be mitigated by Mr Wilburt Crain Himself at our home.
Also beyond the Original Prescribed conditions of his Licence was a condition that all dust be mitigated on site.
From the end of April 09 to the end of Sept. 09 not once were any mitigation actions taken by the Owner of the Pit. NOT ONE
Just how many times must a Company be reminded, and further it states that a letter was sent by Crains Construction and verified by the MNR inspector. In the ARA it states that a sign must be put at every entrance and exit. Only one sign with the Licence numbers on one gate were installed. See photos below.
Crains further said they put in trees not true. They put saplings two to three feet tall. The inspectors forgot to say what a joke it was. (My conversation with them on site) Photos below
My further Questions has to why no charges were brought forward for dust.
The MNR prosecutor took 2 min. of video showing the crusher in front of our home and charged Crains for failing to have a CoA (certificate of authorization) for crushing on the site. They also had over an Hour or so of footage taken about the dust. That was ignored by the MNR. They had my wife's journal written in her hand before she died. That was ignored. The fact that silica was present in the dust is irrelevant since DUST WAS TO BE MITIGATED ON SITE a condition of their licence.
In this one letter sent to the Township this describes just one moment of the many times she suffered
Yes Jeanine is better when I took her back to the doctors they gave her a puffer and some pills. She had another episode and used the inhaler and it helped.
I thought for sure she was going to have a heart attack when she was choking for at least a half an hour. I wanted to call the paramedics but she wouldn't let me. The bruise on her stomach is getting better. Now we keep all the windows closed and don't go out when Crain's is around at least she doesn't.
The MNR had all the documents and could have consulted the Township Planner of their authenticity as well as appointments and meetings.
The MNR states that I did not give them my test sample results. On four occasions I asked the MNR if they knew there was silica present. Not once did they say one way or another if they knew. I had told them I had a sample tested and found silica present. The MNR never asked me even once for a copy of that report. The report was done by McMaster Environmental Laboratories. Yet now they say after 3 years that my sample may not be to the standard that they accept. In all this time no one took it upon themselves, to do a sample. If the MNR relies on air samples why, as a citizen, am I required to monitor their sites at my expense. The very fact that crystalline silica is present, regardless if it is an air sample, is hazardous. And for the first time now they say an inspector came in April 2009.
I did not set the standard for crystalline silica when it is Health Canada, Environment Canada, World Health Organization (WHO), Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) and so on. The Ministry of Labour (MOL) has very strict guidelines concerning an exposure to crystalline silica. The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) also has guidelines on particulate matter (ie)dust.
The Statement used by the MNR "That silica is abundant throughout all of Canada" is a general statement and not related to close receptors in the case of gravel pits or quarries. It only stands to reason, the closer you are to a source of contamination the greater the risk. I am sure the MNR are fully aware of these facts. But in order to operate these sites the MNR ignores the risks associated with pits and quarries.
To all concerned in this, you have no idea of what my wife went through. My wife of 32 years was perfectly healthy prior to the operation of this site in 2009. In 2008 my wife had no difficulties with her health. Crain’s never operated the site. As well, I suffer from the same symptoms and I am being treated in the same manor. Just simply amazing two people who had no problems associated with the respiratory system have the same symptoms and only after Crain’s started working on the site.
A note Why has the Ministry of the Environment not Notified all Owners of Pits and Quarries that they are required to post these sites has Hazardous Sites since the very fact there is a potential risk for airborne silica. A listed Carcinogen.
Do You See any Signs on these gates.
There are Three Exits and Entrances only one gate had a sign.
Photos Taken Dec 16/09
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Dec 19/12 There are still some ongoing issues that have to be addressed before I can put the hole story in its perspective. I am working on these issues and hope to have them resolved soon.
I have just one more investigation to be completed and then all documents that I hold will be revealed. I had hoped that people who knew what was going on would come forward but they didnt. There own letters will be displayed and then perhaps they can answer them.
In this letter sent directly to Minister Gravelle this was the response:
This document is in response as to why no charges for dust were brought up.
Given the clear requirements for dust control in the aggregate license for Crains, and by extension the Aggregate Resources Act which is enforced by the MNR, the MOE did not pursue charges for the dust related impacts and deferred that particular matter to MNR for follow-up/investigation as they saw fit as the lead agency for this site. I can’t speak to why investigations/charges were not pursued or considered by MNR for the license violations relating specifically to dust issues as I wasn’t involved in their investigations into Crains’ operation.
Thanks for the email.
This is his response.
As Mr. Arnott stated I did conduct an investigation in relation to the activities that took place at the Crain aggregate site in 2011. The investigation was specific to the Certificate of Approval conditions of a custom aggregate producer whom was employed by Mr. Crain to crush gravel at this site. A complete crown brief was sent to the legal services branch of the Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario. The Attorney Generals representative declined to lay charges in this matter explaining to me that such charges would not be in the publics’ interest. The Attorney General has the final say in these matters. The brief was sent back to me and closed.
With all the documents that I have and what I have already displayed, there is way to much to try to understand. I have added and added to this site but soon it will have to be put in an order to understand it better.
As I said I have been waiting for things to be completed and for the most part it has. I will be putting the new information in and hopefully be able to index the documents.
The Ministry of Natural Resources who licences the Pits and Quarries excepts no responsibility for their stakeholders. In Obtaining documents under the freedom of information act., I obtained compliance reports for the mentioned site. In viewing the videos and there date codes as well as the Court Transcript it appears that the documents are false. The MNR makes sure that their stakeholders are well protected even after charges (which are a joke and Prosecuted by the MNR) these documents were never brought up.