Saturday, January 30, 2016


The story was published in the January 4, 2016 Waterloo Region Record and is titled "Waterloo woman running length of 800-km Line 9 pipeline in protest". Rachel Thevenard has decided to run the length of the proposed Enbridge's Line 9 reversal of flow pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal. The plan is to also transport bitumen as well as crude oil. If my memory serves me correctly bitumen is thicker and possibly more toxic than regular crude oil.

There are many issues involved in this protest including Enbridge's past failures both with pipeline maintenance and with cleanups of spills. The most infamous is the damage done to the natural environment and the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. Another issue deals with the requirement that governments must consult First Nations prior to allowing developments that affect their lands. The Canadian government has shown its willingness to talk while at the same time not listen.

Recently our new federal Liberal government have been indicating that there will be stepped up environmental assessments again for some of these proposals. They will not stop any currently in process but they will apply for all new ones. Can you imagine an environmental assessment process that actually had an honest "No" option if the facts and data indicated that the project wasn't safe or in the public interest?

Friday, January 29, 2016


There was an article in the Waterloo Region Record on January 11/16 titled "City to sell contaminated factory site". The site is the former Electrohome plant at 152 Shanley St. in Kitchener and it has sat abandoned and empty literally for decades. This is on the corner of Shanley and Duke St.. Electrohome built hardwood television cabinets at that location. It would appear from the contaminants listed in the groundwater and soil that they are the result of improper/illegal disposal of paints, solvents, varnishes and lacquers. Like many other manufacturers using those products including the formerly contaminated Deilcraft site near Manitou Drive; in ground disposal was common.

The shame in all of this is that both the city of Kitchener and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have known about this contaminated site for so very long and done essentially nothing. "The soil and groundwater on the property have "elevated concentrations of metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds and trichloroethylene (TCE)," an industrial degreaser... .". Allegedly earlier studies of the site suggested that the chemicals are confined to the upper aquifer by a layer of clay. Please we've heard about those so called impermeable, inpenetrable clay layers up here in Elmira and they are mostly wishful thinking and an excuse to do nothing. Aquifers flow horizantally as well as vertically. Allegedly the Ministry of Environment carried out indoor air sampling in 2008 and 2009. That would have been mostly looking for TCE via vapour intrusion as occurred so dramatically and dangerously in the Bishop St. community in Cambridge.

The Cambridge disaster courtesy of Northstar Aerospace should have been a wakeup call for everybody. Instead the Ontario M.O.E. are content to sit and wait for the City of Kitchener to attempt to sell this land and then get it cleaned up. The neighbours are in danger of vapour intrusion and this site should have been remediated twenty-five years ago.

Thursday, January 28, 2016


Today's Woolwich Observer carrys this story titled "Chemtura, environmental group at odds over extent of contamination leaching off property". The article is in response to Tuesday's Press Release handed out by CPAC (Citizens Public Advisory Group). CPAC are the reincarnation of the original CPAC (Chemtura Public Advisory Committee) appointed by Woolwich Council in early 2011 and then cowardly attacked and undermined by the new Council and specifically Mayor Shantz and Councillor Bauman throughout 2015.

"...the GHD report actually confirms the fact that the site is an uncontained hazardous waste site and has contaminated adjacent residential and agricultural properties.". This is but one of the damning statements in CPAC's Release. My favourite is " No surficial soil samples, no subsurface samples, and no groundwater samples were collected along an extensive low lying portion of the east side property boundary - a distance of approximately 160 metres in length. This is the precise location of the east side drainage ditch which was specifically identified as requiring investigation by Peter Gray.". Peter Gray of course is the Principal of MTE Consulting which produced a stunning report about the east side in October 2014, commissioned by CPAC.

I am pleased to say that currently CPAC and TAG both appear to be on the same track. Dick Jackson of TAG has proven himself to be a formidable Chair and is both outspoken and a straight shooter. His observations regarding the failures of both Chemtura and the M.O.E., while similar to CPAC's in many areas, actually go further regarding Chemtura/M.O.E technical failures. Mr. Jackson knows and understands remediation of toxic sites and has already done a great service to citizens understanding of what needs to be done technically.

The next public TAG meeting is set for February 11, 2016 at 6:30 pm. in Council Chambers.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016


The question in the title above is in my opinion not a difficult one. What is more difficult is the extent of the bypass as well as what the full intent of all parties was. Is it possible that the elder Strohs at the time were simply offerred a free Drain for example to get rid of the swampy, marshy area that was quite close to their house at the time? That this Drain has accomplished that goal as well as draining Chemtura's former swampy area north and east of GP1 is obvious and this drainage has been admitted to by Jeff Merriman of Chemtura at a CPAC meeting.

Here are the facts. The Stroh Drain was built in approximately 1985 at a time of significant on-site cleanup and source removal by Uniroyal Chemical. This included taking the west side ponds out of use as well as other upgrades. A skeptic might think that they were desperately putting their house in order prior to admitting that they had poisoned the community's drinking water (1989).

There are again what we've been advised are "furrows" but which appear from Waterloo GIS and Google Earth as huge swales on the property running north to south from the most northern east side pit (RPE-1) down past the most southern pits (RPE-5 & TPE-2).

Again both Google Earth and Waterloo GIS show obviously manmade lines across the Chemtura property which run north to south while also turning eastwards and leaving the Chemtura site below RPE-5 and ending at the Stroh property. I was accused of "cross-examing" poor Jeff Merriman about these visual scars at a public CPAC meeting back in October 2014. Apparently the Mayor elect as well as Councillor Bauman felt that my questions were too difficult for Jeff to handle. This is despite his agreeing that my questions were all submitted politely to him.

I believe that these lines are likely some form of Interceptor Trench used to collect shallow groundwater and divert it. The other possibility would be a Barrier wall as was developed at the University of Waterloo known as the Waterloo Barrier.

There is some visual evidence that the field to the immediaste east of Chemtura's property has been tiled. At first I questioned why as the land is very elevated and slopes and drains naturally southwards towards the low lying land and the Stroh Drain. Then I recalled the 173,000 gallons per day of toxic wastewater pumped into these east side pits. They not only leaked through the bottom but also overflowed over the top onto the Stroh field. Could this field have been tiled as much for toxic liquid wastes as for rainwater?

The final fact is the refusal of both Uniroyal and the Ontario M.O.E. to order any kind of Containment & Treatment System for the east side discharge of groundwater into the Cangagigue Creek on site. This made zero sense in 1997 when the south-west side UACTS (Upper Aquifer Containment & Treatment System) was commissioned. This in fact was the reason that APT Environment walked out of the dysfunctional and corrupt UPAC in June 1994. Uniroyal and the M.O.E. had publicly indicated previously that they would not hydraulically contain any more than the south-west corner of Uniroyal's shallow aquifer.

Once again I let you the readers determine whether the facts support my theory that the Stroh property was used as an intentional bypass of the Chemtura property in order to divert contaminated groundwater as well as direct overflow from the east side pits eventually into the Canagagigue Creek. The purpose could have been to avoid detection by on-site (Uniroyal & Chemtura) monitoring as well as to save having to pump and treat the diverted on-site groundwater which may be captured by the alleged Interceptor Trench and diverted over to the Stroh Drain. The on-site swales take both the admitted intentional discharges of liquids from the pits southwards as well as any overflows caused by heavy rains. These swales discharge into the former swampy area north and east of GP1 where they then gravity flow eastwards directly into the Stroh Drain where it is closest to the Chemtura property (20 metres).

Tuesday, January 26, 2016


CPAC continues without needing to directly deal with their least honest former elements. This would include Woolwich Township, Chemtura Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Councillor Mark Bauman. CPAC was formally known as the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee. Now they are known as the Citizens Public Advisory Committee. Their mandate is to advise, advocate and assist in all environmental issues surrounding the Chemtura property (& more) in Elmira, Ontario. CPAC have continued being involved with public meetings (RAC & TAG) dealing with Chemtura's and the M.O.E.'s environmental failures, obfuscations and misrepresentations to the public.

To this end CPAC have examined the East Side Soil & Groundwater Investigation report recently released. It was done contrary to the advice and direction given by CPAC. Clearly Chemtura and their partners in pollution, the M.O.E. wish to continue to deceive the public. There has been a thirty year plus coverup of the nature and extent of the contamination both on and off Chemtura's property. The release of toxic liquid wastes onto the neighbouring property to the east has been documented in various reports since the 1980s with absolutely nothing proper being done about it.

This report while worthwhile in general, still adheres to the coverup, deny and minimize formula that made Conestoga Rovers & Associates so popular with Chemtura. GHD, the new incarnation of CRA, are on a similar track. So many common toxic chemicals were either not tested for at all or tested for at ridiculously high detection limits (MDL) so as to reduce the chance of detections. Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) and Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PHCs) are two examples of such toxic groups of chemicals that are found throughout the Chemtura property.

The other game they played was in avoiding testing either soil of groundwater along a 160 metre stretch of their eastern border. This is the stretch of Chemtura's property line closest to the Stroh Drain as it heads due south on its' journey through the Martin swimming pond (by diversion) and into the Canagagigue Creek. This avoidance of testing is so incredibly blatant and obvious on the Figures attached as part of this report. There literally is no surficial soil testing, no subsurface soil testing and no groundwater testing in this discharge point for both surface and groundwater leaving the Chemtura site.

The conclusion of GHD that their investigation proves that Dioxins/Furans and DDT are solely contained in the top six inches of soil is totally bogus. Their sampling points have zero scientific validity and credibility. Their number of samples are even more biased. They on behalf of their clients are doing what they've always done which is to attempt to save millions of dollars with a superficial cleanup that is more cosmetic than functional. Obviously a six inch "cleanup" versus a six foot cleanup or more will do little for the environment but wonders for their bottom line. And so it's always been with this site.

Monday, January 25, 2016


Recently Breslau residents were witness to two former Woolwich Councillors stepping up for their community. Both Bonnie Bryant and Grace Sudden stepped up and spoke out on behalf of their community regarding the proposed sale of parkland to the Catholic School Board. Both former Councillors felt that the best interests of the community lay in not selling their beloved and well used parkland.

Now it appears as if in a more subtle fashion, Grace Sudden may have also stepped up in her role as a member of the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC). This committee has certainly been taken to task by yours truly over their mishandling and egregiously biased decisions regarding two current Woolwich Councillors. Councillor Hahn was found to be in contravention of approximately seven different Municipal Election Act rules by the forensic audit done by Froese & partners. Despite this MECAC chose to not send him to the courts for possible prosecution. Considering the severity of the violations and the questionable, after the fact, paper trail of receipts and invoices, that decision was unsupportable.

Similarily MECAC abandoned all pretense of independence and nuetrality with their mockery of their role to order a Compliance (forensic) Audit if any contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act even reasonably appear to have occurred. In fact mayor Shantz admitted at the first MECAC public meeting last July 2/15 that she had violated the rules by failing to file an audit, accepting an overdonation from a corporation and of miscalculating her total Contributions (donations) by nearly three thousand dollars. Despite these and other later proven and admitted contraventions MECAC twice refused to do their duty and order a forensic audit of the mayor's Financial Statements.

I have claimed both bias and conflicts of interest with a number of MECAC members. Indeed one member to his credit voluntarily chose not to attend the last MECAC meeting (October 26/15) after being called out by two citizens for his alleged conflict of interest. Now it appears that Grace Sudden actually has added more evidence to my claim that MECAC were biased to the point that they were essentially operating as an arm of Woolwich Council which by definition includes mayor Shantz. I mean really it now appears, thanks to Grace, that MECAC are in fact no more than a typical, totally under the control of Council, committee of Council.

All of us who have been members of committees of Council like to think that we are independent. We absolutely are not. As long as we follow what Council wants and supports, everything is good. Simply look at how this Council treated, maligned and abused the Chemtura Public Advisory Committee last year. The old Council supported CPAC, the incoming one did not. The new Council knew they had no legitimate grounds for dismissing them, so they made up the grounds and got away with it because afterall they do totally control their own allegedly independent committees.

The amateurishly written and sadly inaccurate MECAC Minutes of October 26/15 are posted on Woolwich Township's website.
Page 5 at the bottom and page 6 at the top, tell the tale. Grace Sudden had seconded the Motion dismissing my Application starting with "Whereas the Municipal Election Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) of the Township of Woolwich...". Grace Sudden then asked for clarification that MECAC represented all the area municipalities not just Woolwich. Chairman Carl Zehr responded that while "..the Committee was jointly created by all the municipalities in the Region of Waterloo, however individual cases were handled by the affected municipality. The wording in the first sentence was correct.". Therefore thanks to Grace and Carl we have clarification that MECAC are no more than a bunch of political appointees under the direct authority and control of the local municipality. They are not independent and they are no more honest or ethical than the municipality in charge of them.

Saturday, January 23, 2016


The recently released East Side Soil and Groundwater Investigation report has focused on shallow (6 inches) soil samples along Chemtura's eastern property line. Seven test pits were dug to a depth of one metre (3 feet). The samples however taken from them were only .35 metre below ground surface or slightly over a foot deep. In other words when Chemtura (GHD) supposedly compare shallow samples to deep samples they are only comparing six inches deep to one foot in depth. That is no legitimate comparison at all.

Yes they certainly hit paydirt with some extraordinarily high readings of both DDT and Dioxins/Furans in their surficial (shallow) soil samples. What is interesting however is the depth they excavated a few years back in order to remediate GP1. GP1 & GP2 were their allegedly multi million dollar "volunteer" cleanup in the south-east corner of their site. Their initial proposal was to remove 300 mm or just under 1/3 of a metre of contaminated soil corresponding to the surficial sampling they had done. Unfortunately, surprise surprise, they found badly contaminated soil underneath their high DDT and Dioxin readings. Out it came to a depth of two metres in an area approximately 50 metres long by 15-20 metres wide at the widest point. Then low and behold they had to go back and do a supplementary excavation because they found still high readings of DDT and Dioxins/Furans. The three supplementary areas were on the west, south and east sides of their initial two metre deep extra excavations. They might only have been an additional ten metres square each. The interesting thing again is their depth . The contaminated soil samples containing DDT and Dioxins were taken at a third of a metre, one and two metre depths for these three supplementary areas. Oddly though the apparent excavation of them was only .3, .5 and .6 metre in depth.

All of this is to point out the self serving mantra of Chemtura that their DDT and Dioxins are all within six inches of the surface. That is untrue. This report indicates Dioxins in groundwater at 2, 3, 5 and 6 metre depths in the Upper Aquifer as well as Dioxins found in wells screened at 10 and 12 metres below ground surface. All of these allegedly "hydrophobic" compounds are indeed transported downwards through soil and into groundwater courtesy of the hundreds of solvents discharged along with them throughout this site.

Chemtura and their consultants primary goal has always appeared to be about minimizing their costs of remediation. To that purpose they have been very sucessful at the expense of the environment and our health. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment have aided and abetted them in this goal from the beginning.

Friday, January 22, 2016


The above title is based upon the assumption/presumption found in the East Side Soil & Groundwater Investigation done by GHD (formerly Conestoga Rovers). That report states that "As the soil samples were collected from the site boundary, the results indicate that impacted soil likely extends beyond the Site boundary." Based upon my reading of the report plus many other investigations done over the last three decades plus, I would agree.

Uniroyal/Chemtura have polluted the soil, the water and the air with hundreds of different toxic compounds. Regarding water there isn't an uncontaminated aquifer from the small Surficial Aquifer in their north-east corner right down to the Bedrock Aquifer, 100 feet below ground surface. Surface water includes both the Canagagigue Creek, the Stroh Drain and more.

This particular investigation dated December 30, 2015 sampled surficial soil samples, subsurface soil samples and finally groundwater. All three are contaminated to varying levels with multiple toxic compounds. The surficial samples along the eastern border have the highest levels of both DDT and Dioxins/Furans. The subsurface samples also taken along the eastern border are the second most contaminated with Dioxins and finally even the groundwater samples have various Dioxins and Furans in them, albeit at lower concentrations.

Chemtura and their professional spokespersons have long flatly stated that both DDT and Dioxins are hydrophobic and can not dissolve in groundwater. Allegedly they adhere/adsorb to microscopic soil particles and hence can only be in water in the form of suspended sediments. Well they are certainly in the Canagagigue Creek, sometimes in high concentrations which could very well be in the form of suspended particles/sediments. That they are also found in groundwater certainly has long been proven despite the best verbal efforts of Chemtura mouthpieces. That groundwater, as well as surface water, flows south, east and west on their eastern parcel of land due to the topography and stratigraphy of the area. In fact their extreme north-east corner might even have a slight northern flow to it as it is the highest topography (surface ground elevation) in all directions. Peter Gray of MTE can be thanked for that information in his October 2014 Report.

Thursday, January 21, 2016


On Monday Januray 11, 2016 Chemtura Canada released a Press Release describing some of the results of their East Side Surficial Soil and Groundwater Investigation. It was a very smooth and professional piece of fluff apparently designed to indicate a minor problem that they are on top of. One sentence of interest for me was the following "The investigation concluded that there are few impacts to groundwater associated with historical activities at this part of the site; however, some variances from the applicable risk criteria for dioxins and furans suggest that additional investigation of shallow soils along the border of the property may be warranted.".

Firstly the "few impacts to groundwater" is a lie. Secondly "some variances from the applicable risk criteria" is unadulterated horse manure. Kudos to your writers for that one Chemtura. Those "variances" are for almost all the surficial soil samples and they are dramatic. As indicated here earlier this week (plus last Saturday) both Dioxins and DDT exceed the applicable criteria anywhere from double to a couple of hundred times when you use the agricultural criteria (13 ppt Dioxins & .078 ppm DDT ) versus their higher criteria of 36.6 for Dioxins and .142 for DDT.

The disappointing aspect of this professional misrepresentation and public deception is the muted response from the media. Three of them were sent by me a Table indicating the MAJOR variances of Dioxins from the applicable criteria. Two of the three to the best of my knowledge have neither responded nor taken any action. One of them (oh what the heck-Woolwich Observer) have indicated some concern/interest and made inquiries.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016


Mayor Shantz mockingly referred to myself at the last MECAC meeting as having "conspiracy theories". Interesting as to how politicians constantly deny collusion and conspiracies which unfortunately are a part of the human condition. As far as the political condition goes they are standard operating procedure. Nothing gets done without private and secret discussions/negotiations taking place first. When it comes to the recent debacle in Breslau regarding the proposed sale of their parkland, lo and behold it now appears that Woolwich staff were quietly discussing that two years ago even after Council emphatically turned it down.

Woolwich CAO Brenneman has recently threatened me in an e-mail with legal action due to my insistence that he and staff correct the now Approved October 26/15 MECAC Minutes. Mr. Brenneman refuses to discuss the specific serious errors in them including false statements attributed to myself. The Minutes are biased and as the meeting was to allegedly discuss Mayor Shantz's election contraventions you can guess which way staff or possibly senior management have tilted those Minutes. This goes so far as to have both misquoted me in the mayor's favour as well as misquoting her admission to further contraventions, pretty clearly to protect her. A few corrections were made between the Draft Minutes which were posted with full knowledge of their errors from December 7/15 until January 8/16 and the Approved Minutes now on the Township's website.

There are many definitions of corruption including "riddled with errors". That definition and more covers Woolwich Township's intentional and dogmatic mishandling of the Municipal Elections Compliance Audit Committee (MECAC) Minutes. Both David Brenneman and staff have received e-mails since December 9/15 advising them of the errors and falsehoods in their Minutes, both Draft and Approved.

The blackmail in the above title is my definition of blackmail and may or may not be the legal definition. You be the judge. The mayor's lawyer in several e-mails threatened to expose a twenty year old civil court case I was involved in if I attended mayor Shantz's Superior court hearing last July. I advised him that it was irrelevant and that I didn't appreciate his scurrilous behaviour. I then attended court and against his protests to the court was granted "friend of the court" status and allowed to speak. This lawyer's name is Jaimie Bennett and I believe he also represented Mark Bauman in his surrepticious trip to Superior Court in order to get reinstated to Woolwich Council. At no time was I the complainant in Mark's case given any notice whatsoever of this legal manoevre.

Again you the readers be the judge. Do these facts represent corruption, intimidation and blackmail?

Tuesday, January 19, 2016


Conestoga Rovers (CRA) are the longtime client driven consultants to Uniroyal/Chemtura up here in Elmira, Ontario. Last summer they were bought out (taken over/merged?) by a company called GHD. I haven't yet made up my own acronym for them however I will entertain suggestions as long as they are irreverent, inappropriate and wickedly accurate. Perhaps along the lines of Great Human Destruction or Glorify Housing Development. You get the idea.

GHD's leap into the yawning chasm of environmental trickery begins with their East Side Surficial Soil and Groundwater Investigation. It is 634 pages of drama, gut wrenching suspense, and historical revisionism all combined with a who done it flare. Oh all right maybe it's not going to be a bestseller afterall.

Last Saturday my post here included a Table showing Dioxin & Furan concentrations in surficial soil samples running most of the length of Chemtura's eastern property line. Along with the concentrations were the calculated (by CRA) Human Health Criteria for the Chemtura property itself. Following is a similar Table for DDT for the same area several hundred metres in length along their eastern property border shared with the neighbour's farm.

Location***Human Risk Based**DDT (& metabolytes) Conc.
ug/g (ppm)**Criterion ug/g

SS01-15 *****.142 ********* .3078
SS02-15 ****** " ********** .695
SS03-15 ****** " ********* 1.977
SS04-15 ****** " ********** .4735
SS05-15 ****** " ********* 1.797
SS06-15 ****** " ********** .260

These DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane... O.K. so I'm showing off) results right on the property line with the neighbouring active farm are between almost double the highest criteria of three (Table 2 & 8 criteria are more stringent) to more than thirteen times higher than CRA's calculated Human Health Criteria. The Table 2 & Table 8 criteria are .078 ug/g which is approximately half of CRA's criteria. Table 2 is the criteria for agricultural lands as in the active for many, many decades farm next door. Table 8 refers to being within 30 metres of a waterway such as say the Canagagigue Creek or perhaps even the Stroh Drain. Therefore these DDT results by the more stringent criteria vary from three times higher to more than 25 times higher. While these soil samples may be new evidence, there have been contaminated groundwater samples along this property line for over three decades. No one has ever accused the Ontario Ministry of the Environment of being in a hurry when human health is at risk.

Monday, January 18, 2016


Besides surficial soil samples taken at a depth of .15 cm (6 inches), soil samples were also taken from test pits excavated along the eastern property border between Chemtura and their neighbour. While the test pits were 1 metre deep the soil samples were taken from.35 m (>1 foot) below ground surface . Also groundwater samples were taken both at wells (new and old) along the eastern border as well as further south closer to GP1 & 2 as well as the southern property border.

The DDT surficial soil samples exceeded both the on-site human health criteria as well as the lower Table 2 criteria (agricultural) for the samples taken from the extreme north end of the eastern border all the way down (400-500 metres) to below the most southern pit known as Retention Pit East 5 (RPE-5).

Several wells had exceedances of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) including OW7-3, OW7-6, OW28-5, OW36-5(R), OW69-13 and OW178-5. The worst one tested was OW36-5(R) with six parameters exceeding the ODWs. These parameters were 2,4,5-T, 2,4-D, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, 2,4-Dichlorophenol, NDMA and Benzene. Benzene has a ODWS of 5 parts per billion (ppb) and tested at 3,500 ppb. NDMA was the most common contaminant exceeding the ODWS with four different wells exceeding the .009 ppb standard.

DDE a breakdown product of DDT also exceeded the Table 2 standards in at least a half a dozen different surficial soil samples. At a very superficial glance it would appear that the worst soil contamination is at the surface and indeed that point is being pushed by GHD (Conestoga Rovers). Unfortunately I have found a number of examples of typical CRA science and hence when one examines both their methodology, their sample points and their clever wording; it appears that some scientific bias may be evident. I will go into this further in upcoming posts.

Saturday, January 16, 2016


Following is a Table and text I have copied and pasted from page 15 of the just released (Monday) "East Side Surficial Soil and Groundwater Investigation" report December 30, 2015, written by GHD (CRA) on behalf of Chemtura Canada. These samples were taken along Chemtura's eastern border from north to south ending below RPE5 and above the start of the Stroh Drain which runs parallel, 20 metres east of their site. Pg/g is the same as parts per trillion (ppt). As can be seen these samples taken right on the border with their neighbour's active farm have Dioxins in the shallow soil at concentrations between double to seventy times greater than the Human Risk Based Criterion calculated for humans on the Chemtura site.

Dioxin and furan TEQs were greater than the Human Risk Criteria in surficial soil samples from
locations SS01-15 through SS07-15. Only the sample from SS06-15 was greater than both the
Human Risk Criterion and the Ecological Risk Criterion for dioxins and furans. The following table
summarizes the dioxin and furan TEQ concentrations from surficial soil samples where TEQs are
greater than the applicable Human and/or Ecological Risk Criteria.

LOCATION***Human Criteria***Dioxin & Furan TEQ (pg/g)

SS01-15 *******36.6************460/385
SS02-15 *******36.6************479
SS03-15 *******36.6************234
SS04-15 *******36.6************87.2
SS05-15 *******36.6************160
SS06-15 *******36.6************2,430
SS07-17 *******36.6************123

5.1.2 Results Relevant to Potential Off-Site Receptors
As the Human Health Criteria and Ecological Criteria were developed considering exposure to
on-Site soil (e.g., in an industrial land use setting), these criteria are not directly applicable for
considering potential exposure to the neighbours to impacted off-Site soil. The neighbouring
property includes a residential dwelling and is used for agricultural purposes. To consider the
potential exposure pathways of off-Site contaminants (i.e., exposure to impacted soil off Site,
immediately adjacent to the Site boundary) to the more sensitive receptors on the neighbouring
property, GHD has also compared the concentrations to the Table 2 and Table 8 Standards (for
reference purposes only). The Table 2 and Table 8 Standards are the generic criteria that would be
applicable for off-Site impacts on the neigbouring property. As the Human Risk Criteria and
Ecological Risk Criteria are appropriate for on-Site soil impacts, only off-Site impacts should be
compared to the Table 2 and Table 8 Standards.

In regards to the above paragraph let me advise the readers that the Table 2 standards refer to agricutural land and are set at 13 pg/g or ppt. The Table 8 standards are set for Dioxins in soil within 30 metres of a waterway and are 7 pg/g or ppt. Hence we can see that these two standards are appropriately much more stringent than the criteria calculated for on-site trespassers (36.6), determined by Conestoga Rovers (CRA) for their Human Health Risk Assessment done back in 2002 -2003. These concentrations just for Dioxins and Furans right on their property line are beyond dangerous and a serious health hazard. To GHD's (formerly CRA) credit they have acknowledged in the text that these concentrations found on their eastern property border obviously indicate off-site contamination onto their neighbour's property.

I am working hard on this very large and detailed report. Readers also need to know that DDT and its' metabolytes also exceed health criteria along the eastern border as do some other parameters such as solvents and NDMA. This is a disgrace that only now due to the efforts of citizens on the last CPAC and SWAT has this environmental disaster come to light.

Friday, January 15, 2016


The bad news first. Despite the Mayor and Mark Bauman selling out CPAC & SWAT to Chemtura and the Ontario Ministry of the Environmenmt, guess who were nowhere to be found Wednesday evening. Both of them have attended TAG meetings in the fall whether by invite or simply as they are public meetings. Not wednesday night. Good work there Sandy and Mark. Also zero media were present to learn so much and pass it on to the public.

There were four parts to Wednesday's meeting. Firstly was the Aquatox Biomonitoring Report, then Chemtura's BLE Report dealing with their recent spill. Some revisions to the TAG Work Plan were discussed and finally more details were given regarding suspended sediment monitoring.

Regarding the Biomonitoring Dick Jackson indicated that the major lesson is that source removal works. The reductions in toxins being absorbed by the receptors (clam & leeches) in the areas that had creek bank stabilization and or removal are dramatic.Dick however did express concern that downstream cages holding these critters that were washed away were not immediately replaced in order to obtain downstream (on-site) results. Interestingly he also commented on the M.O.E.'s plans to test Young of the Year (YOY) fish. The problem he sees is that they won't have the extra fat required to store DDT and Dioxins.

Dick Jackson also commented briefly on the just released East Side Soil and Groundwater Report. It indicated as expected that the neighbouring (Stroh) property is contaminated. He also stated that one monitoring well along the east side border was highly contaminated.

Mr. Jackson commented that there is longterm on site DNAPL which also is no surprise. He said he was not aware of any off-site DNAPL so at the end of the meeting I advised him of two highly probable off-site areas. I also reminded him of the quantities of liquid wastes pumped over to the east side ponds/pits. They were approximately 173,000 imperial gallons per day of waste liquids.

Dick Jackson (TAG Chair) also repeated his comments that Chemtura/M.O.E. have been measuring the wrong thing for decades. In other words they should have been measuring the suspended sediments not the water itself. He stated "How it could go on for so long he doesn't know". He also stated "which interpretation is worse 1) the ignorance of the situation or 2) knowing and not acting on it.". Finally he stated that the cleanup needs a company that are truly independent of the M.O.E. to peer review it.

Teri Buhlman of the Ontario M.O.E. sent an e-mail response in regards to warning signage for the Canagagigue Creek. Dick found her e-mail "a little underwhelming". TAG then passed a Motion to go to RAC advising that the response from Ms. Buhlman was inadequate and we urge the M.O.E. to put up signs with appropriate wording and imagery.

Swinging back to the revised TAG Work Plan three areas stand out. First of all the belated discovery of the basal gravel layer at the bottom of the Municipal aquifer is incredibly significant. Secondly the issue of back difusion of contaminants out of aquitards and low permeability areas will determine the final cleanup timeframe. Thirdly the poor effort regarding ISCO (In Situ Chemical Oxidation) will be attempted a second time. ISCO a source removal method can vastly improve cleanup times if used appropriately and in the right locations. Interestingly I presented a Delegation to CPAC on ISCO to the previous CPAC in 2008 or 2009. That pair (Susan & Pat) along with Chemtura and the M.O.E. ignored my Delegation. I had even pointed out that ISCO was used with some success in Cambridge at the Northstar Aerospace contamintaed site.

So Sandy and Mark where are you right now when an expert of the stature of Dick Jackson is telling us exactly what we CPAC & SWAT told you and Woolwich Council a year ago? Chemtura and the M.O.E. have been lying, deceiving and misrepresenting the facts to the public for the last twenty-seven years. Myself years ago plus CPAC and SWAT came out and publicly advised in the spring of 2012 that the 2028 cleanup date was nonsense and now everyone is on board. Sandy and Mark your horseshit and drivel about "respectful" dialogue is nothing but a smokescreen for the likes of Chemtura and the M.O.E.. After decades of lying to the public they do not deserve "respectful" dialogue. They deserve public condemnation and a swift kick in the teeth.

Thursday, January 14, 2016


Really they are pathetic and I've had enough of it. Incompetence including grammar, spelling and typographicals is at worst amateur hour. The real nasty is the blatant, pro Woolwich staff and politicians, bias. Their Committee minutes are also sometimes biased such as various CPAC Minutes from years ago which downplayed M.O.E./Chemtura/CRA incompetence and errors.

The Draft Minutes had me allegedly suggesting things like I was in agreement with the opinion of Tim Ryall of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I was not. They had mayor Shantz allegedly stating that she contacted her auditor Mr. Tim Adams AFTER I filed my Application for a Compliance Audit. That was untrue as she had stated at the meeting that she contacted him in May and my Compliance Audit application was dated June 16/15. MECAC member Robert Williams had asked if she or her accountant had written the July Financial Statement and the Draft Minutes stated June while the Amended ones dropped the date entirely thus confusing which Financial Statement the mayor was referring to in her answer..

Page four of the Draft Minutes claimed that MECAC members engaged in a debate in regards to ordering a Compliance Audit or not. They did no such thing. Just like the July 2/15 meeting each member gave his position individually against an audit and there was absolutely no back and forth between them. Page five claimed that I made an "allegation" regarding the low threshold required to order a Compliance Audit. I did no such thing. I made a statement of fact and backed it up with a report from the Ontario Bar Association which I quoted. I had also provided Woolwich Council previously with case law which backed up the same low threshold required for a Compliance Audit.

Both the Draft and Approved Minutes mistated Kevin Thompson's (Smith Valeriote) words on Page one. The Minutes state that Kevin Thompson's term "purposeful reading of the Act" in his Legal Opinion referred to a quick resolution of campaign finance matters when in fact it was in reference to allowing a Compliance Audit Application for the Amended and Supplementary Financial Statements. It is possible that the error here is Kevin Thompson's and not the taker of the Minutes. Regardless it is inaccurate and wrong. The Approved Minutes are simply hilarious on Page two, paragraph two as they now have me stating that Tim Ryall (Municipal Affairs) had stated in his letter that hosting of meetings and appreciation notices are all legitimate campaign expenses. Horse balogna. While the fact is true, Tim Ryall didn't say it and I didn't claim that he did. It then turns bizarre as on the very next page (3) the Approved Minutes reverse the statements again. Now we have mayor Shantz proclaiming accuarately that Tim Ryall told her to oversubmit and hence gives the false impression that these expenses were optional or subjective. They are not. Sandy actually stated "the MEA (Election Act) does not address thank you ads". That's awfully deceptive when you look at the Form 4 (Financial Statement) report which lists voting day party/appreciation notices on page two specifically to be filled in as expenses. All in all these two pages (2 & 3) are a disgrace as far as Minutes go. Two and a half months to produce this inaccurate and biased garbage. And those MECAC idiots approved it. You all deserve each other.

Page four of the Approved Minutes is going to be my last comment today. Larry Aberle allegedly stated that "the increased expenses that were recorded were trivial and represented less than 1% of the candidate's total spending limit.". That's another damn lie! Larry said 1 1/2 % ....LOL. In fact what Larry was talking about was the new contravention revealed earlier at the meeting by mayor Shantz that she had paid for additional sign stakes out of her own pocket rather than through her campaign account and that she had not expensed them. This one particular contravention was indeed only $151 and that was what Larry referred to as being 1 1/2% of her total expense limit. As you can see unsurprisingly this error and all the rest all seem to fall in the mayor's favour.

Woolwich Township you are a bush league bunch of dishonest, old boys club, incompetents. You excel in puffery and horse manure. For what you are paying you should have professional help with ethics and honesty included.


Today's post is primarily concerning the just posted (yesterday) approved MECAC Minutes from October 26, 2015. The title regarding Woolwich can also be further substantiated by the astounding developments Tuesday night in Breslau regarding the rejection of the Mayor's and Council's plan to sell parkland to the Catholic School Board. It seems that things might not have been appropriate regarding staff behaviour over the last two or three years.

The abysmally inaccurate and biased Draft MECAC Minutes were posted on the Woolwich website for a month. They were finally removed last Friday. This past Monday I posted here a number of the more blatant errors and falsehoods. The Approved Minutes replaced them late yesterday morning. I must say firstly that I am in awe. Secondly thank you to MECAC for having approved this second set of minimally improved but nevertheless still incompetent, biased and dishonest Minutes. Your approval MECAC seals your fate as being nothing more than lazy, incompetent bums whose purpose appears to be protecting equally lazy and stupid politicians from the accountability demanded by the Municipal Elections Act. Two signatures are on the Aproved Minutes and they are those of Clerk Val Hummel and MECAC Chair Carl Zehr.

David Brenneman (CAO) has refused to send this party to the MECAC hearing of October 26/15, a copy of the tape recording of that meeting. My expectation is that MECAC also didn't receive one based upon their approval of it. The errors, falsehoods and biased comments/interpretations begin on page one, become worse on page two and reach a crescendo on page three. Mind you the comments attributed to Larry Aberle on page four are stinkers as well. Page five and six wind down apparently satisfied with the previous four pages of disaster.

These Minutes are incoherent and inconsistent within themselves (especially pg. 2 & 3) as well as still having a couple of grammatical or typographical errors in them. The real treat is the inherent bias expressed in the Minutes. It matches the inherent bias of MECAC that they possibly in their woeful ignorance were not even aware of during their questioning both of myself and then mayor Shantz. She was lobbed softball questions while the MECAC members did their best to throw me off with ridiculous, irrelevant and just plain stupid questions. Similar to last Monday I will be writing a detailed report on the specific lies, misrepresentations and overall bias expressed in these Minutes.

Tomorrow I may cover last night's TAG meeting. Dick Jackson was informative and expressive last evening as usual with the M.O.E. appropriately taking the brunt of his comments.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016


TAG or Technical Advisory Group meets this evening. This is their first meeting since November 26/15 and to date it is fair to say that CPAC & SWAT are thrilled with Dick Jackson, the paid (1 year) Chair of TAG. Furthermore while I have on a couple of occasions referred to some of the other TAG volunteers as Sandy's curling buddies (which is true), nevertheless a review of the last meeting's Minutes makes it clear that they are interested, paying attention and asking some good questions. Chemtura and the Ministry of the Environment are less enthralled with Dick Jackson. He is more diplomatic and less blunt than say myself, just not by a whole lot. You have no idea Sandy & Mark, Jeff & Dwight how much we've enjoyed his consternation, disappointment, puzzlement and disbelief in regards as to what has passed for a "cleanup" over the last twenty-six years. Almost exactly what CPAC told you twits over the last five years and what I've been saying for closer to ten years now.

Tonite's meeting will discuss the TAG 2016 Workplan including updates, methods of measuring suspended and deposited sediments and also further recommendations to RAC for their March 10, 2016 meeting. RAC by the way stands for Remediation Advisory Committee and is filled with bureaucrats and politicians of proven measure. Note I didn't specify what proven measure. The Region of Waterloo, GRCA, Woolwich Township politicos plus a few citizens, one of good character, are all on it. The citizens will rotate after the first year unless of course Sandy and the gang step in and keep the already co-opted ones. Similar to the treatment of CPAC, working in the public interest doesn't buy you much ground here in Woolwich Township if it runs counter to those in power.

Citizens you are needed at these public meetings. Your presence will push the Woolwich Observer into attending and reporting on these important matters. CPAC & SWAT have been attending despite the scurrilous behaviour of Sandy, Mark and the rest of Council. CPAC & SWAT recognize that we are at a watershed in regards to ever restoring the Elmira Aquifers to drinking water standards. Please attend for yourselves, your children and the environment.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016


What follows are two e-mails between David Brenneman CAO of Woolwich Township and myself. They are in reverse order as that is how I copied them from my e-mail to put on this page. The first one (mine) went out at aprroximately 8:15 am. this morning and David's to me (2nd one) came in last evening at 7:58 pm..

David: Firstly you have failed to directly respond to my request for a copy of the tape recorded Minutes. A simple yes or no would suffice although you, staff (possibly), MECAC and most of Council would be more likely to jump out of a window rather than reveal the incompetence and bias of themselves as demonstrated by the Draft October 26/15 MECAC Minutes.

Secondly I and every other party to the legislated and mandated MECAC meeting, plus the public in general, were offerred an opportunity to comment on the Minutes of a public meeting which was held in a publicly owned, publicly financed building whose staff sometimes forget their place as they too are paid for from the public purse.

As you know members of the public including citizens who are members of committees (CPAC) or not (eg. SWAT) absolutely do provide feedback on Committee Minutes. This has occurred at CPAC meetings literally for decades. Most especially when a member of the public, whether or not a formal CPAC member, has been misquoted in the Minutes, they routinely provided feedback at the appropriate Agenda location at the next public meeting when Minutes were being discussed. In fact the last CPAC, with a new Secretary (Sport Specialist?) with zero training or experience regarding hydrogeological, chemical and other environmental issues and terminology; in order to save time at the public CPAC meetings was in the habit of sending this member of the public and non CPAC member, her Draft Minutes privately for my detailed review before they went anywhere. This was known and understood by all CPAC & SWAT members and nevertheless the Agenda of the next public meeting still had the opportunity for all participants at the meeting (Chemtura/M.O.E. etc.) plus the general public to comment.

By the way your use of the word "professional" twice in your brief note does not make it so. Interestingly the newest CPAC (TAG) Secretary (Sport Specialist?) regularily included spelling errors and similar sounding but incorrect words in her efforts, perhaps simply to amuse the reader.

So the very same "professional" staff who made a mess of the Draft Minutes are now going to revise them and again send them on to MECAC for approval. My comment stands regarding MECAC requiring a copy of the tape recorded Minutes in order for them to be able to honestly and accurately "approve" those Minutes. On second thought perhaps they have no need for the tape recorded Minutes afterall. I do apologize to sensitive (& informed) individuals for having included the words "honestly and accurately" in the same sentence as MECAC.

The "appropriate process" as you've described it is indeed appropriate if you're more concerned about rewriting history and facts than in capturing accurately what was said at the meeting two and half months ago. Provide me with the tape recordings of this public meeting immediately or else you are burying Woolwich Township credibility even deeper than it already is.

Alan Marshall

On Monday, January 11, 2016 7:58 PM, David Brenneman wrote:


You were afforded, out of courtesy, an opportunity to comment on the draft MECAC minutes. It was not a required action.

As you know, members of the public do not provide feedback on Committee or Council minutes. Council reviews and approves the minutes prepared by professional staff. There's no back and forth discussion re: edits with any members of the public.

The revised minutes, as prepared by professional staff out of the Clerk's office, will be reviewed and approved by MECAC the approval authority. That's the appropriate process.



Monday, January 11, 2016


I was planning on writing an alternate set of Minutes to the October 26/15 MECAC (Compliance Audit Committee) meeting and posting them here. The Township's version was filled with errors, inaccuracies and just plain over the top ridiculous comments and were posted from December 7/15 until Friday January 8/16 on the Township's website. I had e-mailed, for a second time, Woolwich CAO Brenneman last Friday and criticized him and the Township's behaviour over this matter. To his credit this time the offending and inaccurate Minutes were removed quickly. Should have happened a month earlier when I first e-mailed him.

So in the alternative I think I will point out a few select hilarious comments by Sandy either as recorded in my notes of the MECAC meeting or as per the now removed "Draft" Minutes posted for a month on the Township's website. Keep in mind that by design Sandy spoke after myself and I was not given the right of rebuttal or even clarification of any of her doozers. For example Sandy advised MECAC and the public that she expensed plates of food brought by her friends for the "kickoff and celebration parties". Well that's certainly interesting because that's not what her own Financial Statements say. They refer to plates of food brought by two of her one hundred plus volunteers to "meetings". The dollar total is $95.00. First off a party is not a meeting and secondly I question how far $95 worth of food is going to go for two partys for how many people including volunteers, Sandy. There is absolutely no reference in her Financials to food expenses at either the September 16/14 kick off party or the October 27/14 celebration/victory party.

Sandy repeatedly states she "corrected the error" and "I (Sandy) made a mistake" in regards to her first February 2/15 Financial Statement. Nice try there Sandy. You made three "mistakes" that you admitted to on that Financial Statement. Since then numerous more have been exposed. Numerous as in a multitude; not a single mistake.

Sandy stated at the October 26/15 MECAC meeting that she didn't originally believe that her Contributions exceeded the $10,000 threshold (for an Audit) and that her expenses still don't. Absolute horse manure on that one Sandy. Reread your own Amended and Supplementary Financial Statements dated August 20/15 posted on the Township's website and repeat that one publicly please.

Finally from Sandy's own lips we have the claim that she was taken to court twice by an elector. Really? I took her to court once and she took herself to Superior Court last July 23/15. Now maybe Sandy wants to count adjournements etc. as the number of times I've "taken her to court" but that seems rather deceptive.

The Draft MECAC Minutes stated that I had claimed that Sandy's volunteers (100 ?) should have submitted mileage costs as an expense. Horse manure, I said no such thing. Furthermore in the next paragraph the Draft MECAC Minutes have Sandy claiming that she herself included mileage costs in her expenses. Again horse manure. Sandy said no such thing plus I see none included in her latest expenses.

Interestingly while the second paragraph on page three of the Draft Minutes is riddled with falsehoods, that might not be entirely due to the incompetent and inaccurate Minutes. Sandy's words regarding being told to "over-submit" by the Ministry of Municipal affairs and hence she included extra expenses above and beyond the mandatory is fairly accurate. The problem is it's also untruthful but at least the Township accurately transcribed her nonsense. Food, in-kind services and Thank You ads are all mandatory expenses that Sandy fudged the first time around. She sold her bullshit on those expenses to a willingly blind, stupid and deaf MECAC whose primary purpose was to protect Sandy from undergoing a professional, forensic audit. Going back to the stupidity of the Draft Minutes would be the claim that Sandy included "the value of sign stakes that she had in her possession before the election". Sandy absolutely did not say that; in fact she stated that she paid for new stakes personally which is yet another contravention of the MEA (Elections Act).

I almost but not quite feel sorry for Woolwich Township. It is my thoughtful opinion that some of their errors in the Draft Minutes are caused by incompetence but also some of them seem much to self-serving, as in helpful to mayor Shantz. I got hammered by the first set of poorly documented, inaccurate MECAC Minutes of July 2/15. News flash Woolwich Township; you can only screw me so many times in a row before I catch on. This time I was expecting the exact dishonesty in the Draft Minutes that occurred and was ready for it.

Last December I was told by Township Staff in an e-mail that the approved MECAC Minutes of October 26/15 would be on the Township's website by December 18/15. The latest e-mail from CAO Brenneman claims that they will be posted by the end of Wednesday January 13, 2016. Also I should add that the "approved" MECAC Minutes are to be approved by MECAC themselves. Isn't that interesting? Has MECAC received a copy of the tape recorded meeting such that they can accurately and honestly correct all the errors or will they be satisfied with any Minutes that make me look bad and Sandy and themselves good? I've put it to Mr. Brenneman that fairness dictates that as the Township, the mayor and MECAC presumably have access and copies of the tape recorded meeting; then how about me. Don't hold your breath folks on that one! Woolwich Township know all about power and control and while honesty and transparency might dictate that I receive a copy, they conflict with the Township's penchant for the first two.

Saturday, January 9, 2016


First off kudos to both the Waterloo Region Record and the Woolwich Observer for there continued coverage of Mayor Shantz's election expense, dare I say, scandal. It is a scandal when I an untrained investigator with no resources, authority or access to her financials continue to unearth more and more undeclared election expenses. This as I repeatedly pointed out to the nincompoops, incompetents and pro Sandy biased MECAC members is neither my responsibility nor burden. My duty lay in reading and studying her February 2/15 Financial Statement and then after finding several inconsistencies, omissions and errors informing the Woolwich Clerk, Val Hummel. This I then presented prior to the July 2/15 MECAC meeting only to be ambushed ten minutes ahead of the meeting by thirty pages of new financials from the mayor. It was MECAC's duty to order a Compliance (Forensic) Audit in order to do the real investigative work and to determine if indeed the contraventions I found were simply the tip of the iceburg. MECAC utterly failed twice to fulfill their legislated mandate.

Regarding kudos to local newspapers and yes I do miss Gail Martin and the Elmira Independent, I must also praise the Observer for their excellent "2015 Year In Review". This includes their incisive November 2015 comment that "The poor election expense filings of three Woolwich councillors cost taxpayers $53,300 in 2015". Thank you Observer for putting the responsibility exactly where it should be. I must also comment upon their yet again wonderful cartoon showing embarassing newspaper headlines posted on the "Woolwich Bulletin Board". Indeed 2015 has been an "eventful" year for Woolwich and with the ongoing court proceedings for back to back mayors, we can only hope that it ends in 2016.

Regarding my above title, in fact the Observer did cover the recent second Chemtura release of BLE-25. This was the same product that did all the property damage back in 2010 just befor the municipal election. Also they accurately mentioned in their 2015 Review the axing of CPAC by Woolwich Council in favour of an allegedly kinder and gentler format, more to Chemtura's and the M.O.E.'s liking. Afterall we certainly wouldn't want to offend Woolwich's dirtiest polluter nor Ontario's most dishonest Ministry, now would we.

Both the Record article and its' link in my Thursday's posting plus the Observer's story by Liz Bevan titled "Shantz court case adjourned until Feb. 24" properly and accurately inform their readers as to how the case is progressing. Yesterday's opinion of mine here in the Advocate that Sandy Shantz has failed to abide by the conditions mandated in the Judgement of Justice David Broad (Superior Court July 23/15) has as yet not been published by our local papers. Time will tell when and whether they pick it up.

Friday, January 8, 2016


It would be even more shocking than it is except that she's already done exactly that from March 27/15, the filing deadline for Financial Statements and Auditors Reports until Thursday, July 23/15, the date that Justice David Broad reinstated her to the mayor's chair. She had forfeited her position automatically when she failed to file her Reports by the legal deadline of March 27/15, imposed by the Municipal Election Act (MEA).

Justice Broad wrote both an Endorsement and a Judgement on July 23/15. The Judgement is quite specific and quite clear. It uses the term "full and complete Financial Statement and Auditor's Report" in four of the seven numbered paragraphs, namely paragraph's 1, 2, 3, and 6. These paragraphs set out one of the major conditions that Sandy Shantz had to satisfy in order to be reinstated as mayor of Woolwich Township. In addition paragraph 6 also states the following "...the Applicant (Sandy Shantz) shall file ... all expenses incurred during the campaign period (from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014)...".

I will quote paragraph 3 in its' entirety as it deals with the automatic forfeiture. The other paragraphs deal with things like extending the filing deadline, ordering the Municipal Clerk to accept the new "full and complete" Statements and also ordering that a Supplementary Financial Statement be included. Paragraph 3 states "This Court Orders that, upon filing with the clerk the full and complete Financial Statement and Auditor's Report prior to the close of the extended filing period, the Applicant shall not be subject to any forfeiture or penalty imposed pursuant to sections 80(1) and 80(2) of the Municipal Elections Act".

Based upon the Judgement of Justice David Broad as well as both past expenses not declared as well as new expenses just recently uncovered and sent on to the Crown prosecuter this past Monday, it is my opinion that Sandy Shantz is not the legally constituted mayor of Woolwich Township. I will be sending copies of this writeup today to Woolwich's CAO, Woolwich Councillors and the media.

Thursday, January 7, 2016


The impression that I have been slowly getting is that while mayor Shantz appropriately had one campaign bank account for her expenses and donations; unfortunately she was also paying her expenses from other sources thus keeping them hidden. This conclusion is based upon her admittance at the October 26,2015 MECAC meeting that she paid for additional stakes for her campaign signs, out of her own pocket. This delicate fact has been inaccurately reported on the Woolwich website under Draft (MECAC) Minutes since December 7/15 despite Township Staff having been informed in writing by myself regarding the error. Furthermore on the Financial Spreadsheet that she provided to MECAC on July 2/15 she has indicated that her Thank You Notices (Appreciation Notices) published in the Woolwich Observer and Elmira Independent were originally entered as legitimate expenses however she reversed that correct decision and removed them from her campaign account and paid for them privately. That of course is contrary to the Elections Act and she has since in her Amended Financial Statement (August 20/15) put them back in again as campaign expenses. Finally the recently discovered undeclared expenses that have been sent on to the prosecuter have not appeared on any of the mayor's two Financial Spreadsheets. One must conclude that all or part of them, depending on the staus of donations or not, would have been paid either by cash or from the mayor's private bank accounts. Keep in mind that a Compliance Audit (forensic audit) would include an examination of the mayor's private accounts as well as her campaign account. This might find other personal payments for campaign expenses contrary to the Municpal Elections act (MEA). MECAC however made certain that mayor Shantz avoided that scenario.

Today's Waterloo Region Record carrys a story by Paige Desmond titled "Woolwich mayor's expense issue to be reviewed by out of town Crown". As I indicated in yesterday's posting, mayor Shantz is both a local mayor as well as a Regional Councillor. While Regional Council has responsibility for the Regional Police budget and some other police matters, the relationship between Regional government and the local courts is less clear to me. That said I do believe that there are certainly financial implications such as Regional government receiving things like Highway Traffic Act fines etc. after conviction in our local courts. It would also seem likely to me that our Regional government bears some responsibility for things like maintenance and even construction/renovation costs for these buildings.

Here is another delicate matter to mull over. Also on the Township's website are the Endorsement and Judgement of Justice David Broad (Superior Court) from last July 23, 2015. Woolwich Township are so pleased with them both that they have been posted on their website for months. These documents/decisions are not remotely an examination of the mayor's Financial Statements despite certain parties so misrepresenting them. They are simply and solely stating that under the circumstances outlined by one party, mayor Shantz, that the penalty of automatic forfeiture of her office was too severe. Even then Justice Broad's decision stated that her reinstatement was conditional. She had to agree to follow a number of prescribed steps in order to be reinstated. Justice Broad repeatedly stated that she must file "full and complete" Amended and Supplementary Financial Statements by a certain date. She complied with the date. But... the "full and complete" aspect of her conditional reinstatement is in extreme doubt. Exactly how has she filed "full and complete" Financial Statements, namely the Amended and the Supplementary Financial Statements, dated August 20, 2015 when hundreds of dollars of new undeclared expenses have just been uncovered? Mayor Shantz was reinstated as mayor from her automatic forfeiture for failing to file an Auditor's Report by March 27/15, on condition that she come clean and file "full and complete" Financial Statements. I believe that she has failed to follow the conditions imposed upon her by Justice Broad in order for her to be reinstated as mayor of Woolwich Township. Woolwich Council, senior Staff and MECAC can all take credit for this still expanding mess.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016


As I understand it there is a cetain amount of confidentiality involved regarding private sit down discussions with the Crown. That said I am of course all about transparency and accountability. Both of those have been sadly lacking to date in regards to the three incompetents on Woolwich Council who feel that the only authorities they need to keep on board are those at the municipal or regional level. I met with the Crown Prosecuter privately for two and a half hours just before Christmas. It was educational, informative, respectful, two way dialogue with both parties expressing the facts, their opinions and their challenges in regards to this case. It was an astonishingly frank and open discussion between two parties and has quite frankly reinvigorated my confidence that there are excellent people in places of responsibility within our judicial system.

Today in court was a surprise for me. That said the prosecuter did give me a heads up in his office immediately prior to court. I believe that Sandy's defence lawyer was running a little late but nevertheless he also received the same courtesy prior to Sandy's case being openly discussed in court. Sandy's former lawyer Mr. Randall Martin is retiring (Best Wishes!) and her new lawyer is a Mr. Assaf whom I did meet and say hello to.

The Crown has requested an adjournement until February 24/16 (presumably at 9 am.) in Provincial Offences Court but not for the same reason as the previous two. He requested and received this adjournement in order that an outside Crown independently review the charges. Now Mr. Andres (prosecuter) did state that there was not a conflict (?). I suspect that he meant to say conflict of interest although I will state that between one annoying person seated in court constantly squeaking his chair plus people coming and going through the doors behind me as if it was a bus station versus a courtroom; that I may have misheard conflict versus conflict of interest. Regardless I did clearly hear Mr. Andres state that the purpose of an outside Crown would be to make sure that justice would be apparent to all parties.

Also of interest was that the J.P. in charge of the courtroom was the same Justice of the Peace who accepted the ten Municpal Election Act (MEA) charges in the first place, namely Justice Marquette. He did so advise all counsels present of this fact and recused himself from any further dealings with this case. Of interest to me is that in the intervening months he has probably literally dealt with hundreds of cases yet immediately recognized myself and the case itself.

Whether this decision to go to an outside Crown is very recent I do not know. This morning was the very first that I heard of it. Possibly the two and a half hour meeting was a factor, possibly my continued suit and tie presence at all the court dates contrary to any sign of our mayor, or even possibly the very latest information sent on to the Crown prosecuter regarding new undeclared election expenses; I simply do not know. What is giving me hope however is that the Crown are seriously listening, learning and studying this case. I view the sending of it to an outside Crown as a positive development. Afterall let's be blunt here. Mayor Shantz is more than simply a mayor of Woolwich Township; she is also a regional councillor. I applaud this decision today while having no knowledge as to what decision the outside Crown will come to.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016


These previously unreported and unknown election expenses as defined by the Municipal Elections Act (MEA) were discovered by myself shortly before Christmas. Fortunately I found them hiding in plain sight prior to my scheduled and appropriate and proper meeting with the judicial authorities and hence was able to pass them along. That said I can understand some of the obstacles in the path of sucessfully prosecuting these MEA charges. They are procedural and they are real.

On October 26, 2015 at the last MECAC meeting Chairman Carl Zehr put it to mayor Shantz directly. Far more directly than the inaccurate (& dishonest?) Draft Minutes posted on the Woolwich Township website indicate. Chairman Zehr categorically and clearly asked mayor Shantz if there were any remaining expenses, major or minor that she had to date failed to declare in her Amended and Supplementary Financial Statements. Mayor Shantz just as categorically and clearly stated that she absolutely had not omitted any expenses from her latest election campaign financials.

At that final MECAC meeting, the MECAC members repeatedly put it to me to come up with yet more and more undeclared expenses by mayor Shantz. I repeatedly made it very clear that the threshold for them to order a forensic audit was my reasonable belief of but one contravention of the MEA. The onus was not on me to prove anything. The onus was not on me to find multiple contraventions of the Elections Act as I had prior to the July 2/15 MECAC meeting and then continue to find further contraventions with each and every new Financial Statement that either the courts (Superior) or MECAC allowed the mayor to refile. This was the scam that MECAC pulled on me and the public with the able assistance of Woolwich Township throughout the process. Those parties twisted beyond all recognition the initial responsibility of the candidate (mayor Shantz) to provide a full and complete Financial Statement and Auditor's Report by the March 27/15 filing deadline. They came up with all kinds of irrelevant excuses, deflections and distractions as a smokescreen to avoid ordering a forensic audit.

These currently undeclared expenses by mayor Shantz are substantial as in several hundreds of dollars more. While her expenses already exceeded the $10,000 threshold (for an audit) even before any of her subsequently completed privately done audits; the obvious problem from the very first Financial Statement she submitted back in February 2015 was that she has never filed a full and complete Financial Statement. This I pounded home to MECAC, over and over, and told them that the only possible way to learn exactly how much she received in donations and how much she spent, was through an ordered Forensic Audit. A Forensic Audit compared to her privately done audit is the difference between a jet fighter and a rubber band airplane.

In approximately 25 1/2 hours I will be at Provincial Offences Court 77 Queen St. Kitchener. At that time I will learn the fate of the current ten MEA charges laid against mayor Shantz. It is out of my hands until then.

Monday, January 4, 2016


I've been looking through the "Chief Drinking Water Inspector Annual Report 2014-2015". At first blush it seems pretty impressive. Afterall when you read words such as "multi-barrier approach", "stringent health-based standards"and highly trained operators", it certainly gives a good impression. Then a glance at the opening statistics claiming that 99.8% of half a million drinking water tests "...met Ontario's strict drinking water quality standards."and one should feel confident in our water systems.

There are a couple of problems however. Firstly Ontario does not have "strict drinking water quality standards". Glyphosate's has a detection limit of 25 parts per billion (ppb.) which is ridiculously high. Many other chemicals have detection limits of .5 ppb. or higher. Trichloroethylene here in Waterloo Region is in our drinking water at 1-3 ppb. in a number of different wellfields. Our drinking water standard says that's O.K. but there are American jurisdictions whose standards do not allow that. Also the annual Region of Waterloo well reports do not even tell us what the standards are. They give a less than figure (<) and a number and simply advise if it is an exceedance or not. How close it is to the standard we are left to guess.

Another basic problem is that each and every drinking standard for a chemical is based upon the false and unrealistic assumption that that chemical alone is in a litre of pure water. It is not; it is mixed in with numerous different contaminants all allegedly below their individual standards. No one anywhere has any idea of the synergistic effects of differing contaminants on human health.

The number of chemical compounds are increasing exponentially and Ontario's drinking water standards have not kept pace. We simply are only testing for a miniscule number of the possible industrial chemicals released into the air, water and soil every year. Even common industrial chemicals such as NDMA, toluene and xylenes are not reported on here in Waterloo region's Annual Drinking water reports.

All this information was presented to Woolwich Council early in 2015. They publicly promised to take these concerns to both the Region of Waterloo and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. I have had zero feedback from the Township since and that is par for the course.

Saturday, January 2, 2016


Last Thursday I briefly mentioned this week's Editorial in the Woolwich Observer. I had decided that my ongoing support and admiration of Steve Kannon's writings would no longer be expressed here after his biased and non balanced writeup of the last MECAC meeting back in late October. The problem is that except for their apparent bias against myself possibly in regards to a threatened lawsuit they received from a Uniroyal consultant decades ago; overall they do good work and Steve Kannon does excellent work. Is it possible that that threatened lawsuit which they settled quickly has been part of their lack of coverage of Uniroyal/Chemtura issues ever since?

To the present! Steve Kannon's Editorial this week is excellent. "We should resolve to expect more of governments" is right on the money. Quoting Steve: "Speaking of budgets, early on we'll be seeing those from all levels of government. Expect nothing but disappointment-taxes will rise, profligate spending will abound, corruption and waste will flourish." From there Steve advises that most politicians are all about lining their own pockets one way or the other including "...plum board appointments or lobbying gigs that skirt laughingly inadequate regulations-ethics being only a suggestion.".

A further quote from Steve: "...we've come to the conclusion that they're all pretty much the same in working against the public interest. Governments serve only their financial backers and themselves, so it just doesn't matter what we do.".

Steve that is the stuff of revolution. He does advise that we the public should add "more involved" to our list of New Year's resolutions. I must agree wholeheartedly and thank you Steve for publicly, in my opinion, expressing criticism of politicians' commenting critically about "conspiracy theorists". The fact is politics is nothing but conspiracies and lying and misleading the public. We need more not less "conspiracy theorists".