Picton Terminals not quarrying, so no licence needed: Ministry

By Sharon Harrison
It was confirmed at Tuesday’s council meeting that the activities at Picton Terminals are not considered quarrying, and therefore do not require a licence, stated Sarah Viau, the County’s municipal lawyer and Director of Corporate and Legislative Services.

“The correspondence between the County and the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) confirms the MNR is aware of the decision of Justice Tausendfreund and has determined that the on-going activities fall within the exemption in the Aggregate Resources Act (ARA),” stated Viau. “… and that the blasting and removal of aggregate required to accommodate the shipping terminal infrastructure does not require a licence because these activities do not constitute the operation of a ‘quarry’ under the ARA.”

In her report, Viau shared the communications between the County and the MNR relating to the use of the property located at 24 White Chapel Road, Picton, specifically the Sophiasburgh portion of the property zoned RU (formerly RU1). Viau clarified that she cannot speak on behalf of the ministry.

The ever-controversial topic garnered extensive discussion around the horseshoe, as well as an additional one hour in closed session, resulting in a motion by councillor John Hirsch that read:

“Following review of the facts, and the law, staff have advised that no bylaw enforcement action is being pursued regarding the use of the rural RU-zoned portion of the property at 24 White Chapel Road.”

“It’s just very disappointing that the MNR has been persuaded that the extensive and lucrative aggregate extraction going on at the Picton Terminals property is simply (quoted from MNR letter): “required to accommodate infrastructure development associated with a shipping terminal”, a shipping terminal that averages 10 ships a year,” expressed Hirsch.

“It’s plain to see that Picton Terminals operations have been cleverly designed to maximize the extraction potential of the site without need for an aggregate licence, and deny the County of the royalties properly due us.”

Referring to the judgement for the Sophiasburgh portion of the property, councillor Kate MacNaughton asked, “Does that mean the Tausendfreund judgement is immortal if they only take a couple of swings of a hammer every year for 100 years? Does that still stand… could they just continue to keep building for forever, which means, of course “extracting” rock because of that judgement because there is no end date?”

Viau confirmed that the decision of Justice Tausendfreund doesn’t specifically discuss quarrying as a use.

“That decision is really about the trans-shipment use and whether that was illegal non-conforming use,” explained Viau. “There is some discussion in the judgement that talks about some of the activities that were going on at the time which are similar to some of the activities that are going on now, but its really not a function of that decision. It’s more a function of the ministry’s interpretation of the ARA and that if extraction is related to construction, then that is not quarrying because of the definition of quarrying in the ARA.”

“Presumably, if they wanted to, could they apply for a quarrying licence?” asked mayor Steve Ferguson, to which Viau said, “I am assuming that they could, yes.” We have no idea if that is in their plan or not, added Ferguson.

Two members of the public provided comment, both opposed to the “quarrying” use of Picton Terminals, including Penny Morris, and Paul Allen.

Morris noted that were two parts to the motion, indicating that staff have not responded to part one which requested staff investigate and report back involving the current state of the Sophiasburgh portion of the Picton Terminals property, in light of the 2018 decision of the justice.

“Where is the staff’s report of the current state on this parcel of land?” asked Morris, who said the report does address the second part of the motion, in essence, asking the ministry to advise how it has concluded that Picton Terminals is not operating a quarry.

“However, the County lawyer’s question, if the charge of operating a quarry without the required licence was withdrawn on the basis of an officially-induced error, does that not imply that there was in fact quarrying activity for which a licence was required, is not specifically answered by the MNR in the correspondence,” outlined Morris.

“Part one of the motion has not at all been satisfied by staff. Part two of the motion has been initiated by staff. However, the response by the MNR is neither complete nor acceptable.”

“In plain language, drone footage presented to this council shows massive quarrying, including on the RU1 Sophiasburgh parcel of land,“ continued Morris.

She said the minimal buildings, specifically two covered buildings for salt, which took about seven years to build “does not justify the tens of millions of dollars reaped from this land without any need to follow the ARA health, safety or environmental regulations, and without any royalites paid to this community.”

Councillor Janice Maynard said its pretty clear what the provincial government’s position is. “We are in a corner we can’t get out of and we have tried, and the provincial government and the ministries have deemed it not to be a quarry.”

Hirsch added that he wanted to remind everyone that Picton Terminals MZO (ministerial zoning order) application, if approved by the minister, would double the amount of land that Picton Terminals could exploit in this way.

“I surely hope that the minister will heed the representations of so many people who have opposed that request, and deny the request for the MZO,” said Hirsch. “The use of property in the County is rightfully the purview of this council, not the province, and I hope the ministry ends up seeing their way to this realization.”

Background
Picton Terminals (ABNA Investments and 1213427 Ontario Ltd.) appeared before the Ontario Court of Justice in Picton on May 16, 2025, facing charges for operating a quarry without a licence under the ARA. The Crown withdrew the charges, determining that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction based on the principle of “officially induced error,” given that Picton Terminals was operating based on exemptions issued by Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), states Viau’s report.

“The 2018 decision of Justice Tausendfreund found that the legal non-conforming use of the Sophiasburgh’s portion of Picton Terminals’ property included only industrial vehicle storage.”

Staff were then requested to investigate and report back regarding the current state of the Sophiasburgh portion of Picton Terminals’ property, in light of the 2018 decision of Justice Tausendfreund; as well as forward the decision of Justice Tausendfreund to the MNR and request a response from the ministry advising how it has concluded that Picton Terminals is not operating a quarry.

The staff report, along with correspondence to/from the MNR, as well as Justice Tausendfreund’s 2018 decision, can be found on the agenda (May 26 council meeting) on the County’s website, along the meeting recording.

Bylaw to investigate use of Sophiasburgh portion of Picton Terminals property

Picton Terminals can continue operations under non-conforming use: Judge