Doug Pollitt and Bill Beckett presented the details of their case against ABNA Investments, owner of Picton Terminals, at a packed public meeting at The Andrew October 26. About 140 people attended the two-hour slide show and talk. 

On 17 January 2025, a Justice of the Peace ruled the private prosecution initiated by a group of four County residents, Doug Pollitt, Bill Beckett, Victor Lind, and Robert Beutel, could proceed.

The charge was operating a pit or quarry without a license, in contravention of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The evidence showed the Terminals had quarried and sold an estimated 1 to 1.5 million tonnes of limestone from the escarpment on Picton Bay for at least $62 million dollars over 8 years. Drone footage documented the massive changes to the once quiet port acquired by the Doornekamp family in 2014.

The Doornekamps have sold what it calls “surplus aggregate” across the province, from Amherst Island to, notably, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority for Ashbridges Bay shoreline construction and rehabilitation.

“Picton Terminals claims all the rock it quarries is surplus to port improvements,” said mining engineer and financial analyst Doug Pollitt. “We argued that the Ministry of Natural Resources had been deceived.” 

“Calling it ‘surplus’ means they do not need a quarry license, and can evade all the conditions of the Aggregate Resources Act.

“We showed that the excavations over 8 years go far beyond port improvements. We also showed that the port side of its business is negligible.”

The hope was that the Crown, represented by the Ministry of Natural Resources, would take up the prosecution of Picton Terminals. But it declined citing Officially Induced Error. We explain what that means below. 

Freedom of Information Revelations

Three days after the case was closed, a Freedom of Information request revealed correspondence MNR had failed to disclose to the prosecution during the court proceeding.

In 2017, in answer to the question, “will there be financial gain?” in reference to the planned sale of the surplus aggregate, the Doornekamps had answered yes, and explained it would be just enough to offset a small portion of their development costs.

But at that point, $45 million dollars in aggregate contracts was at stake. ABNA had agreed to deliver hundreds of thousands of tonnes of “surplus aggregate” to Amherst Island, to the Cherry Street Landfill project, and to the Ashbridges Bay Landform projects in Toronto.

“It is very difficult to believe this is anything other than an outright deception of the Ministry of Natural Resources,” says Mr. Pollitt.

“In a case of Officially Induced Error, if you mislead the authority you cannot claim that it misled you.”

A Pattern of Activity

In addition to the sheer amount of money the Terminals earns from its quarrying, and which it seems to have failed to disclose to MNR, the evidence also documents what Mr. Pollitt calls “a suspicious pattern of activity.”

First, ABNA Investments bids on a contract to quarry and ship limestone aggregate. “It generally wins its bids because it has none of the expenses of a licensed quarry. It pays no taxes, fees, or royalties on the rock it excavates, just to start. So it significantly underbids the competition,” notes Mr. Pollitt.

Once a bid is successful, Picton Terminals signs a contract to supply a certain amount of aggregate on a defined timeline.

Then a pretext is found to justify the excavation of the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of rock is has agreed to supply.

“Grain silos were not the real reason for that massive excavation,” he alleges.
“They could have built the silos on top of the escarpment
with much less trouble, waste and expense.”

Doug Pollitt, Mining Engineer

As an example, Mr. Beckett and Mr. Pollitt detailed the timeline around the Randle Reef Remediation Project.

Bids were sought on a contract to rebuild part of the Randle Reef in August 2023.

In January 2024, ABNA Investments won the contract.

In August 2024, it announced a partnership with Parrish & Heimbecker to build a bulk cargo grain shipping terminal consisting of 8 massive grain storage silos.

The silos would not be set on the escarpment. They would be in the escarpment.

Intense blasting — with no permit — started in October 2024.

“The Randle Reef Remediation Project was a large, multi-year, highly synchronized project to contain toxic sediments in Hamilton Harbour. By August 2024, Picton Terminals would have been bound by contract to supply aggregate on a fixed schedule. Where was it to be sourced? And under what pretext?” asks Mr. Pollitt.

“Grain silos were not the real reason for that massive excavation,” he alleges. “They could have built the silos on top of the escarpment with much less trouble, waste and expense.”

“Randle Reef falls into a pattern I’ve seen over and over again. This is how 1.5 million tonnes of aggregate have been drilled, blasted, and removed from this shoreline quarry. First, bid on, win, and sign a contract to ship rock. To Amherst Island. Hamilton. Oshawa. Or Ashbridges Bay in Toronto. Then find a pretext to start blasting.”

Under the slogan Stop the Quarry, Mr. Pollitt and Mr. Beckett are fundraising to launch another court case.

They also think it’s time residents of Prince Edward County called their elected representatives, municipal, provincial, and federal, to account. “Multiple levels of government failed us on this one. And they are still failing us.”

“We are all just waiting for the province to grant an MZO that would double the size of this unlicensed, illegal quarry,” says Mr. Pollitt. 

Explainer: What is the “Officially Induced Error” defense?

In court May 16, Crown Prosecutor Demetrius Kappos stated: “Excavation of limestone from the Defendants’ property has been occurring for about 8 years and the Defendants have, for the most part, informed the Ministry of Natural Resources about the work they were doing. In response, the Ministry has consistently told the Defendants that the work fits within the ‘building or structure’ exemption and therefore an ARA licence was not required.  

“That message was conveyed to the Defendants in 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2023. The Ministry also conducted a site visit in 2022. 

“The Defendants [therefore] have very compelling evidence that any resulting legal error was induced by the repeated assurances from MNR, thereby amounting to a defence of officially induced error.”

Saying there was no reasonable prospect of conviction, the Crown withdrew the charge.

The Picton residents’ lawyer, Rodney Gill, noted at the time, “if all of this excavation was related to construction of buildings or structures, there would be more buildings and structures on the property.” 

As Bill Beckett noted, the claim of officially induced error “was effectively agreeing with our case. There was an acknowledgment there that the evidence is damning. But at the same time, the Crown failed to call the Terminals to account.”