Government Continued Pg.5

Fri, 8 Apr 2011

A letter to the Federal Minister of The Environment


Honourable Peter Kent

I am writing to you in regards to the environmental protection act. I have been asking the Ontario government M.N.R and M.O.E. to conduct an investigation into the harm caused by a Gravel Pit owner who showed total disregard for the health and well being of my wife and myself. The operator of the site failed to use any method for mitigating the dust on the site or even making an attempt tot do so. Mt wife began choking from the dust on this site when they began working it. We had complained on numerous occasions to have something done about it but to no avail. After 51/2 months my wife died she constantly choked from the dust and was basically a prisoner in her own home. We had seen doctors about this where she was prescribed medications to help her breath. She had coughed so severely that she had bruises on her stomach. We were given a letter from the practioning nurse to move from the home because of the continued respiratory distress caused by the dust.

I had supplied live video and photographs to the M.N.R and the M.O.E. and spoke to two officers ********from the M.N.R. and *******from the M.O.E. I was told by *******that this should have never happened since the operator never had the authority to crush on this site because of the close proximity to the homes. I took a sample of the dust and had it analyzed and found it contained crystalline silica.

Since the time that I asked for an investigation it took a letter to Premier McGuinty to have anything even started and now I have waited for an answer from any of the authorities about the violation and now feel that the M.N.R. is sitting on the case. With video evidence they said that at the time when the officers were there was nothing going on. They came in the spring of the following year.

I do not know if this is the correct forum for asking for an investigation by the Federal Government and am asking how to properly ask. I will supply you with some of the information and letters that I have sent and received as well as photographs of the bruise that my wife had from coughing. My wife passed away on October 25/09 and I have been trying to get this recognized since and have the person or persons brought before the authorities.

The incident happened at Snow Road Station, Road 509, North Frontenac, Ontario. I have since moved back to my home town.

Ken Cressey

This Photo is from bruising from coughing from the dust. Its has been documented by her own health professional.

Reply from Mnr

Hello Ken: The scope of my investigation is directly related to the operation of processing equipment without a Certificate of Approval....any concerns regarding dust or other tests relating to the environment should be directed to the MOE.

Thanks ************

---

From: Ken Cressey

Sent: May 25, 2011 12:14 PM
To: (ENE)
Subject: Snow Road

Hi ********

I am curious about just what is going on to what happened to my wife and myself at snow road.

Firstly is the M.O.E. saying to me that the Environmental Protection Act. is now under the discretion of the M.N.R and that the M.N.R are the ones that are responsible for the enforcement of the Act.

The fact that the Act states

“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

That is now under there discretion of the M.N.R. and not the M.O.E

I have sent proof of what had happened to us and all that is being ignored by the M.N.R.

I have just sent date codes to ********* for the court and asked that a letter be read on my behalf.

He now says that is not up to him what is going on?

The Reply

Hi Ken,

Aggregate operations are regulated by the MNR. MNR issues licenses to operate pits and quarries, and the licenses contain conditions which operators are legally required to adhere to. The definition of adverse effect in the Environmental Protection Act is very broad, and in instances where another ministry directly regulates an activity causing an alleged impact, and that activity is governed under the license to conduct that activity, then that ministry is the lead agency for enforcing the conditions in their license. In this instance it is the MNR that is lead agency. I haven’t heard from ****** or *********, the aggregate officer who regulates Crain's pit. I will let ******know of your concerns though.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Kingston District – Operations Division______

Hi Ken,

I’ve been in contact with Conservation Officer *********at the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). MNR is still the lead agency on this issue and I have advised ******** of all of your correspondence. He is fully aware of the situation and your concerns and I understand that MNR******* directly.

Regards,

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Kingston District – Operations Division______

---

From: (ENE)
Sent: June 14, 2011 8:01 AM
To: 'Ken Cressey'
Subject: RE: Ken Cressey

Hi Ken, I’ll be speaking with MNR regarding your continued concerns and will get back to you. Thanks.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Kingston District – Operations Division______

 

---

From: Ken Cressey

Sent: June 14, 2011 1:08 AM
To: (ENE)
Subject: Ken Cressey

Ken Cressey

P.S. I did read the procedure for the M.N.R. and the M.O.E

Examples of ARA Licence/Permit Conditions and/or Site Plan Notes that

Cross Reference EPA or OWRA Requirements

1. Where the Ministry of Natural Resources with the assistance of the

Ministry of the Environment has determined that the operation of the

pit/quarry has caused any well water to be adversely affected, the

licensee/permittee shall, at the licensee’s/permittee’s expense, either

deepen the well or replace the well to ensure that historic water

production quality standards are maintained for that well. If this

pit/quarry operation has caused a water supply problem, the

licensee/permittee shall, at their expense, ensure a continuous supply

of potable water to the affected land owner.

2. All construction equipment used in any phase of pit/quarry operation

shall conform to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Noise

Guidelines for Construction Equipment as prescribed in the ministry’s

publication NPC115.

3. The licensee/permittee shall comply with Ontario Ministry of the

Environment Noise Guidelines for stationary sources as prescribed in

the Ministry’s publication NPC205 and NPC232.

4. Dust emissions from the licensed/permitted site shall be controlled to

ensure compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and Ontario

Regulation 346.

13

5. The licensee/permittee shall apply dust suppressants as frequently as

necessary to control dust emissions from internal haul routes, and the

type of suppressant, method of application, and the frequency of

application shall be in accordance with any requirements of the

Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment.

6. Dust emissions from the licensed/permitted site shall be controlled to

ensure compliance to standards set out in ministry publication:

“Summary of Point of Impingement Standards, Point of Impingement

Guidelines and Ambient Air Quality Criteria”.

Summary

For this operational procedure to be effective, MNR must be cognizant of all

requirements of the ARA, the regulations, site plans and conditions on all of its

licences and permits. The one-window approach with MNR being the first

contact in designated areas of the province must be followed. In non-designated

areas it is the responsibility of both ministries to work together in support of this

operational procedure. It will also be imperative that when MNR approaches

MOE for technical support or support in notifying complainants (Scenario 1) that

MOE provide that support in all cases. The combination of these commitments

should help to ensure an effective operational procedure for addressing

complaints related to aggregate operations across the province that are received

by either ministry.

It is important for MOE and MNR to maintain a dialogue with respect to this

operational procedure to ensure that it is working effectively and provide a level

of service to protect the public and meets the objectives of both ministries. To

this end, staff from MOE and MNR will review annually the operational procedure

and any issues that may arise and make the necessary amendments to the

operational procedure.

From:  Ken Cressey

Sent: June 24, 2011 12:48 PM
To: (ENE)
Subject: Snow Road

Hi *****
I want to know if the M.O.E. has ever done any testing on the material from the ***** site at Snow Road. (e.g. crystalline silica) You can send this to *******as well at the M.N.R. I would like an answer to this question from either of you. Further did *********sign an agreement under the Aggregate Resources Act. Specifically that states what his obligations are under the Act.

Thank you
Ken Cressey

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
From: Ken Cressey 
Sent: August-18-11 1:11 AM
To: commissioner@eco.on.ca
Subject: Who is responsible

Dear Sir
My name is Ken Cressey and I would like to now just who is responsible. This issue has been going on since  May 2009 when my wife and I complained to the Municipality of North Frontenac on more than one occasion about dust and noise from a gravel pit owned and operated by ***** Construction. My wife and I had even asked for an environmental assessment but were denied. The site where the dust originated contains crystalline silica something the M.N.R. doesn't want to discuss. There only issue is the fact that the company did not have approval for a crusher and screening plant. Never the less putting in front of our home approx. 300 ft. away. We complained about this site to the Township the M.N.R. and the owner. When the M.O.E. became involved they passed the buck back to the M.N.R. stating they were the lead agency involved. With video, photos, and e-mails that were also looked at by the Minister Of The Environment the Honorable Peter Kent. The owner was reminded of his obligations under the aggregate resources act. and the environmental protection act.. This is outrageous if not contemptible. The Township was more than aware of our complaints the M.N.R. were first contacted and they saw no infractions with the site. The owner of the site Mr. ***** ***** came to our home and assured my wife and myself that he would use mitigation measures and did nothing at all. So, Sir where are my wife's and my rights in all of this since no one bothered till my wife died. She suffered for 5 1/2 months of respiratory distress and died of heart failure on October 25/09. No one is accountable and after speaking with not less than 10 law firms telling me that I can not afford to sue them they all walk away Scott free. This is Government Sir? Apparently we have no rights! I would like for you if you can to try to give me an answer. You are also welcome to look at the evidence. http://deathanddustmystory.blogspot.com/2011/07/page-6.html
Ken Cressey

RE: Who is responsible?
18/08/2011
Reply ?
Chris Wilkinson
From: Chris Wilkinson (Chris.Wilkinson@eco.on.ca)
Sent: August-18-11 2:29:24 PM
To: Mr. Cressey,
The Commissioner asked that I respond on his behalf.
I am deeply sorry about the loss of your wife. I can’t imagine how your experience has been.
You asked what branch of government is responsible for aggregate operations. I appreciate that you’ve already dealt with them, but the Ministry of Natural Resources is the lead ministry particularly in terms of the actual administration of the Aggregate Resources Act. I’m including some links below about the ARA, your rights, and the EBR.
You can find out about your rights under the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) here:
http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/The%20EBR%20and%20You.pdf
You can find some basic information about how the Environmental Bill of Rights applies to the Aggregate Resources Act here: http://www.eco.on.ca/index.php/en_US/pubs/staff-reports-and-publications/pits-quarries-and-the-environmental-bill-of-rights
You can file an application for review of a licence under the ARA (which is then forward to MNR), asking that its conditions be changed for example, using this form:http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/EBR%20Documents/App%20for%20Review.pdf
If you have evidence that the conditions in an ARA licence have not been followed, you can file an application for investigation (which is then forwarded to MNR) using this form:http://www.eco.on.ca/uploads/EBR%20Documents/App.%20for%20Investigation.pdf
You can read about what the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has written on aggregate operations in the past, including those dealing with applications for investigation and review, here: http://ecoissues.ca/index.php/Category:Aggregate_Resources_Act
I hope you find this information helpful.

Christopher
Christopher Wilkinson, PhD RPP MCIP
Senior Policy Advisor
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

Hi Ken, the MOE has not done testing at this or other aggregate sites around the province that I’m aware of. I’m not sure about MNR as the lead agency for these types of operations. You’d have to check with ******* on that as well as any signed agreements with ******** under the ARA for this particular site.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Kingston District – Operations Division______

I did send this very Question to the M.N.R and have never received a reply.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL2f8NUErJE

Update

October 12/2011
In a recent letter sent to the M.O.E. of Ontario with all the evidence that I have and the videos on U-Tube their reply

Dear Mr. Cressey:

Thank you for your recent undated letter and attachments, and your follow-up October 11, 2011 e-mail to the Honourable John Wilkinson, Minister of the Environment.

As you may know, Minister Wilkinson was not re-elected in the recent provincial election.

Your letter and enclosures were reviewed by Ministry of the Environment staff. I have been informed that your concerns fall under the responsibilities of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR). I encourage you to continue to make MNR aware of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Ministry of the Environment

This is what we have for Government

This is how our environmental rights are handled.

Jeanine spent 26 years working for the Municipal Government and in her death she gets zip from Ontario.

Now we go back to the M.N.R again.

More News; On October 26/11 While on the phone at 5:30pm with the prosecuting attorney discussing the case and my testimony with the charges brought up against the gravel company, the company called the prosecuting attorney while I was on the line and plead guilty to not having a CoA (certificate of authority) to crush on the site.  As far as charges concerning the dust I am still fighting this issue.

Last e-mail from MNR

Nov 2/11

Hi Ken:

Once court has ruled on a case it is considered at that point to be public knowledge.... 

The prosecutor reviewed all your video/photo evidence and as you know,, there was a plea agreement made prior to court. Thanks for your evidence and willingness to be a witness....

Thanks again Barrie

A Note from what happens when you plead guilty

Pre-court preparation includes preparing a Crown brief, Notice of Intention (required under the Ontario Evidence Act), witness statements and discussing the case with the prosecutor, if required. A complete discussion of these preparations and court proceedings is contained in the MNR Enforcement Training Manual (Part VI).

If there is to be a plea bargain to avoid a trial or to agree on the fine between the defendant and the Crown prosecutor, the Crown prosecutor will usually discuss this with the investigative team (e.g. Aggregate Inspector, Conservation Officer and Enforcement Supervisor).

Aggregate Inspectors and Conservation Officers must be prepared to assist the Crown by providing sufficient information to allow them to make informed decisions.

Aggregate Inspectors and Conservation Officers shall not negotiate plea bargains without the knowledge and consent of the Crown prosecutor.

Where the defendant pleads guilty with or without a plea bargain, the Aggregate Inspector or Conservation Officer may have to provide their evidence or partial evidence through their will-say statement when the plea is entered in court to determine the amount of fine that MNR recommends.

The Crown may not have the evidence but it is in these pages for all to see.

I hold nothing but contempt for the McGuinty Government and the MNR if these are the attitudes of the Government the next thing to do is open all the prisons and grant pardons to all the inmates. Justice ..............

Nov. 8/11

I received a phone call from the Ministry of The Environment and in that conversation a question came up " why did the MNR not bring any charges up about the dust from the site" I am now trying to obtain the court transcript of just what went on and just what was said to the judge presiding the case. The MOE seems to be as baffled as I am as to what has taken place.

It is fascinating that a persons health as well as well being is not taken in to account with matters of the court. I wonder does this mean that when the MNR are involved with a case that they now can decide what should be admitted into court when a person pleads guilty. My wife and I were told by a medical practitioner to relocate from our home of continued respiratory distress. We could not have the use of our property because of the dust and noise. We were driven to insanity by the noise from the crushing. She had bruises on her stomach from coughing so severely. The worst part was we were trapped in our own home while no one helped. This company new of there responsibilities under the aggregate resources act and the environmental protection act. While on the phone after hours with the MNR prosecutor the gravel pit owner just happens to call and plead guilty.

Nov 11/11
There are other actions that I have initiated on my own that I will be posting. There is more to this story that I have not published because of ongoing investigations.

If you read Transcript of a Trial by the MNR this shows that the Government has no conscience towards people effected by operations licenced by them. You will also have to find your own Lawyers and pay for all actions yourself.

MY SUMMARY

In Summary for me no one Ministry is accountable.

The co-operation between the Ministries does not work M.N.R. and the M.O.E

Self regulation by the Owners of these operations does not work.

The Township failed under the Municipal Act as well as others.

The Gravel Pit Owner failed in his responsibility under his licence, ignored our concerns on 3 occasions.

In this instance for myself and my wife just who paid the price, the gravel pit owner profited and so did the municipality as well as the M.N.R.

There needs to be a separate body impartial from the MNR and the MOE that will take complaints and enforce the Acts that governs Pits and Quarries.

There needs to be a stronger presence by both the MNR and the MOE at these sites.

The MNR in my opinion favours the Pit owners and ignores the acts that govern these sites.

There is a direct conflict of interest with the MNR since they receive revenue from these sites.

It only cost me the most kind and generous person I have ever met. My health and the Love of my life. It also cost all the people that knew her.

Her Loving Husband  Ken Cressey

Youtube
Facebook
Jeanine's Memorial