Bauxite stored at the Sophiasburgh site leaves behind red rock and surface water five months after its removal. (Supplied Image)
The MNR has responded to official queries from the County about the rock quarrying on the Sophiasburgh portion of Picton Terminals —zoned RU1— to say the company does not need a licence to continue quarrying across the property, no matter whether the land is zoned Industrial or Rural.
In response, the four County residents who brought charges against the Terminals last year have warned the MNR they are prepared to file charges again, this time against the Ministry itself for failing to properly administer the Aggregate Resources Act.
After aerial photography showed the Sophiasburgh portion of the site, which is zoned RU, or Rural, is being quarried alongside lands zoned MX-Industrial, Councillor John Hirsch initiated a formal inquiry to the MNR in December 2025 by bringing a two-part motion to Council for approval.
The motion asked that “1. staff…investigate and report back…regarding the current state of the Sophiasburgh portion of Picton Terminals’ property; and, 2. that staff…request a response from the Ministry advising how it has concluded that Picton Terminals is not operating a quarry.”
In response to queries from County counsel Sarah Viau about the quarrying, the MNR’s Tracy Adams, noting the Ministry’s most recent inspection of the property was in July 2025, wrote,
“To date, no Aggregate Resources Act license has been deemed necessary based on our inspection findings.”
“PT has been in compliance with the ARA, as the removal of aggregate is required to accommodate infrastructure development associated with the shipping terminal.”
“These activities do not constitute the operation of a quarry under the ARA.”
That response is now routine.
Last year, a Crown prosecutor acting on behalf of the Ministry intervened in the private prosecution brought against the Terminals by the County residents, noting that if any illegal quarrying had taken place at the site, it was arguably the result of “officially induced error” — that is, the Ministry allowed it.
The results of the County’s inquiry were discussed in a closed session of Council last month, and a brief statement read in open session.
“It is very disappointing that MNR has been persuaded that the extensive and lucrative aggregate extraction going on at PT is ‘required to accommodate infrastructure development associated with the shipping terminal’. A shipping terminal that averages about 10 ships a year,” said Councillor Hirsch.
“It is plain to see that PT’s operations have been cleverly designed to maximize the extraction potential of the site without need for an aggregate licence, denying the County the royalties properly due us.”
The Councillor went on to note that the County’s application for an MZO for the site still hangs in the balance 18 months after it was made.
“That application, if approved by the Minister, would double the amount of land that the Terminals could exploit in this way and I hope that the Minister will heed the representations of so many people and deny the request for an MZO.
“The use of property in the County is rightfully the purview of this Council, not the province. I hope the Ministry sees its way to this realization.”
The lawyer representing the residents who tried to bring the Terminals to court last year has written to the Ministry to ask that it reconsider its position in light of the evidence they have produced to show that the owners of the property are quarrying, not to build shipping structures, but for financial gain.
The letter, by Rodney Gill of Goodmans LLP, notes the “baffling lack of enforcement for an astoundingly large illegal pit and quarry operation at the Property.”
“MNR somehow does not believe that the removal of more than 1.5 million tonnes of aggregate requires a licence or permit under the ARA,” the letter continues.
Charging that the Ministry is “willfully blind to the illegal activity at the Property and the clear violations of the ARA…brought to the MNR’s attention,” it advises that if the Ministry does not change course, the residents will bring a complaint to the Ontario Ombudsman, and commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure against the MNR.
“Our clients have come to understand that the owner of the Property provided MNR staff with misleading and incomplete information regarding the Property, including the true purpose and commercial value of [their] extraction operations.
“Through the expenditure of significant resources, our clients have patiently and diligently parsed through and explained the relevant evidence to staff of MNR. Unfortunately, MNR has not taken appropriate steps in response.
“Our clients expect the public and the courts to be dismayed and dissatisfied with what MNR has done, including the superficial explanations it has provided to justify its inaction.”
The letter concludes, “to avoid litigation, our clients request that MNR revisit its position” and “find a permit under the ARA is required for aggregate removal at the Property.”
See it in the newspaper
21° Fog
