The small group of concerned residents who initiated a private prosecution against Picton Terminals last year, bringing evidence that it was operating a quarry without a licence, was invited to make its case to the Ministry of Natural Resources last month. Doug Pollitt, Bill Beckett, and their lawyer, Rodney Gill of Goodmans LLP, attended.

The court case was quashed, you will remember, when the MNR intervened, saying it had allowed all quarrying at the White Chapel Road site by issuing a series of exemption letters, in 2016, 2018, and again in 2023. 

In every case, an exemption from the requirement for a quarry licence under the Aggregate Resources Act was granted based on information the owners of Picton Terminals supplied about their activities.

Three days after the court case was closed, a Freedom of Information request yielded correspondence that suggested the information supplied by the Doornekamps was fraudulent.

In a letter to the MNR dated December 20, 2017, Ben Doornekamp described a series of port improvements, including the construction of a dry salt storage bin, which would require aggregate excavations. He noted there would be financial gain from the sale of the surplus aggregate, but it would only “be offsetting a small portion of the port development costs.”

But at that point, notes Mr. Pollitt, “PT was under contract to supply $18 million of aggregate to Amherst Island and was pursuing the $27 million Ashbridges Bay contract.” In total, $45 million dollars in aggregate contracts was at stake. The Doornekamps had agreed to deliver hundreds of thousands of tonnes of “surplus” aggregate to Amherst Island and to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority for its Cherry Street Landfill and Ashbridges Bay Landform projects.

Further research reveals that ABNA Investments has won 9 of 9 bids on aggregate contracts over the past decade — an unprecedented level of success in a highly competitive industry, where as many as 14 bidders might be in play for a single job. The Doornekamps seem able to underbid because they pay none of the royalties, taxes, or fees associated with running a licensed quarry.

These are the kinds of behind-the-scenes details Mr. Pollitt and Mr. Beckett gave to the MNR, offering much-needed context to the Doornekamps’ exemption applications.

“We feel the MNR now has a better understanding of both the fact pattern of what transpired at Picton Terminals along with how the ARA needs be interpreted with respect to that fact pattern,” says Mr. Pollitt.

“It appears that Picton Terminals was not entirely honest with the MNR. That’s problematic.”

The Doornekamps justify their excavation of more than one million tonnes of aggregate, representing earnings of more than $60 million — as per only those contracts recorded on public websites — under the ARA’s Building Exemption. They have always maintained that any quarrying they were doing was to build structures related to shipping, like the salt storage bin. 

But the facts of the case seem to show otherwise. A brief prepared by lawyer Mr. Gill lists the following:

—The property consists of 62 acres on White Chapel Road with about 1200 metres of shoreline on Picton Bay along the escarpment.

—More than one million tonnes, has been removed from the property over the past decade, most of it over the past 6 years

—Picton Terminals , the operator of the property, has been a substantial commercial supplier of aggregate for large lakefill-related projects in Ontario over the better part of the past decade

—a pattern has been established that shows the bidding on and award of contracts to deliver aggregate has preceded announcements of works or projects at the property

—shipping activities have been minimal for the past decade —other than the shipping of aggregate, shipping operations at the site demonstrate almost no economic benefit

—the works or projects at the property have not been materially used for any purpose other than the removal of aggregate

Aerial photos included in the brief document the changes to the original 62-acre site over the past ten years — including its expansion into neighbouring rural properties. They depict a massive rock quarry.

Mr. Gill concludes, “It is obvious…from even a cursory review of the visual evidence…that there are no buildings or structures on the property…that would warrant the removal of aggregate such as it has occurred.”

The much-cited covered salt storage bin, to give just one example, which the Ministry of the Environment ordered Picton Terminals to construct, and which Mr. Doornekamp said he would build in 2018, was not built until 2024. It was uncovered until mid-2025. Mr. Gill notes, “the volume of space within the ‘salt bin’ is many times larger than any amount of space that has ever been dedicated to storing salt at the property and the very lengthy period it took to construct (seven years) was far more in keeping with the requirements of contracted aggregate deliveries than any economic purpose related to salt storage.”

Other major excavations are on land, the Sophiasburgh portion of the property, zoned not MX-Industrial like the rest of the site, but RU, or rural agricultural. A 2018 Ontario Superior Court decision specifically excluded this portion from the grandfathered zoning that allowed port-related activities, including quarrying, on the rest of the site. 

Council directed municipal staff to investigate what looks like quarrying on land zoned RU in December 2025 and expects a report later this month. It has also asked MNR why it allowed the Doornekamps to quarry on land not zoned for it.

An illegal quarry means prosecution under the Provincial Offenses Act for breaches of the ARA. That means fines of up to $1 million, plus any profits made from aggregate sales. Deliberately misleading the officers of the MNR is a different matter; it falls under the criminal code for fraud.