COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. - and- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal)

Transcription

1 .r--- l ; n n n n n n n n n n r n n n Ii n, J 'I., BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Date: December 6, 2013 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. - and- Court File No. C57908 Applicant (Appellant) THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant (Respondent in appeal) - and- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. APPEAL BOOK AND COMPENDIUM OF THE APPELLANT, BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent (Appellant) MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter EJ. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: I Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant (Appellant), Burlington Airpark Inc.

2 -2- TO: GARDINER ROBERTS LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 3100 Toronto ON M5H 3Y2, Canada r~, Ian Blue LS#: 14641J Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Respondent (Respondent in appeal) -, TO: The Attorney General of Ontario Constitutional Law Branch 4th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G2K1 Fax: (416) TO: The Attorney General of Canada Suite 3400, Exchange Tower First Canadian Place Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 r I~

3 INDEX

4 - 3 - r i BETWEEN: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Court File No. C57908 r! BURLlNGTON AlRP ARK INC. Applicant (Appellant) ~ I! - and- r! THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) AND BETWEEN:,,, [ ~ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant (Respondent in appeal) -. - and- BURLINGTON AlRP ARK INC. APPEAL BOOK AND COMPENDIUM OF THE APPELLANT, BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent (Appellant) r- TABLE OF CONTENTS r-.,! : TAB 1. DOCUMENT Notice of Appeal dated November 15,2013 PAGE 1-6 '!i 2. Copy of Order of Justice Murray dated November 13,2013 in File 3992/13 and File 4229/ r 3. Copy of Amended Endorsement of Justice Murray dated November 13,2013 amended November 15, '" 4. Notice of Constitutional Question dated November 15, r 5. Notice of Application dated July 17,2013 in File 3992/

5 -4- TAB DOCUMENT PAGE n 6. Notice of Application dated July 30, 2013 in File 4229/ Notice of Constitutional Question dated July 25, ~ 8. Cross-examination of Jeff Stevenson, Q Cross-examination of Jeff Stevenson, QI03-109, and Cross-examination of Jeff Stevenson, QI and r,..., I II. Cross-examination of Jeff Stevenson, Q ; ; ; ; Affidavit of Scott Stewart, Exhibit A Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, Exhibit A Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi, Exhibit C Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, Exhibit D Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, Exhibit E ,..., 17. Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, Exhibit BBB Affidavit of Maura Kilcoyne, Exhibit E, p ~ 19. Affidavit of Denise Sebastian, Exhibit G, TP 312E table of contents Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, Exhibit FFF I. Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, Exhibit QQQ Affidavit of Jeff Stevenson, Exhibit A Affidavit of Scott Stewart, Exhibit J Stevenson cross-examination, Exhibit Affidavit of Scott Stewart, Exhibit K Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit of Scott Stewart, para Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para

6 -5- r i r ~ I DOCUMENT 30. Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para 16, 18 and Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit of Maura Kilcoyne, para Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi, paras Affidavit of Vincenzo Rossi, para Affidavit of Jeff Stevenson, para Appellant's Certificate Respecting Evidence dated November 15, Certificate of Completeness dated December 6, 2013 PAGE I r r I. r, r I i ~, i, j r

7 ADM1NISTRATION_ Tab 1

8 1,. COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Court File No. c:... S 1- q OS BETWEEN: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant (Appellant) - and- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) AND BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant (Respondent in appeal) - and- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent (Appellant) APPLICATIONS UNDER Rule 14.05(3)(d) and (g) NOTICE OF APPEAL THE applicant Burlington Airpark Inc. in application and respondent Burlington Airpark Inc. in application 4229/13 APPEALS from the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Murray dated November 13, 2013 made in those two applications that were heard together at Milton, Ontario to the Court of Appeal. THE APPELLANT ASKS that the judgment be set aside and judgment be granted as follows:

9 -2-2 I. an order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(d) declaring the appellant's rights under the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2 as amended ("Aeronautics Act") and the regulations thereunder; 2. an order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(d) declaring the appellant's rights under the City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ); more specifically a declaration that such by-law does not apply to the applicant's operations and construction of aerodrome facilities on its premises; 3. an order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(d) declaring that a certain purported order to comply issued by the respondent in appeal on or about May 3, 20 \3 is null and void and of no legal effect; 4. an injunction pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(g) ancillary to the relief claimed in subparagraphs (a) through (c) enjoining the respondent in appeal and anyone acting on its behalf from interfering or attempting to interfere with the appellant's operations and construction of aerodrome facilities on its premises; 5. its costs, together with H.S.T.; 6. such further or other ancillary relief as seems just in the circumstances. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are as follows: 7. Justice Murray erred in that he failed to properly construe the City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (the "Site Alteration By-law"); and in particular:

10 - 3-3 ~ (a) he erred in holding that the Site Alteration By-law was designed to,i regulate the quality of fill. This is an incidental purpose of the Site ~ Alteration By-law which is formally entitled "A By-law to Protect and Conserve Topsoil And For Prohibiting or Regulating the Alteration of ~ Property Within the City of Burlington". In pith and substance the Site Alteration By-law regulates the use of land within the City; r (b) he erred in failing to consider the impact of the Site Alteration By-law on the federal aeronautics power, including the exclusive federal power over the location of airports, the design and layout of airports and the structures and materials to be incorporated therein including, but not limited to: (i) the fact the Site Alteration By-law expressly regulates the final elevation, slope, drainage and grade of the site which items are already addressed in Transport Canada's "Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices" TP 312 which is the applicable guildeline for such parameters at airports in Canada and is, in turn, based upon international aeronautical standards incorporated by reference in TP312; (ii) the fact that s of the Site Alternation By-law gives the City's Director of Engineering the power to "impose terms and conditions and design guidelines upon the issuance of any Permit" which, if the Site Alteration By-law applies to airports, would

11 -4-4 include the municipal power to dictate design terms, conditions and guidelines over runways, taxiways, aprons, hangars or any other aeronautical structure on the airport; (iii) the fact that the Site Alteration By-law contains provisions under s.4.2 and 4.5 that empower the City'S Director of Engineering to order the owner of land altered without a permit under the Site r Alteration By-law to restore the land and to permit the City to do so at the owner's expense in the event the owner fails to comply with the order. This would include the power to require the airport r r to remove runways, taxiways, aprons and other structures already built without a permit issued under the Site Alteration By-law. 8, As a result of his errors in construing the Site Alteration By-law, he incon'ectly concluded that the Site Alteration By-law did not intrude on the core of the federal aeronautics power and impair it. 9. He erred in law in applying the obiter dicta in Ontario Inc. (Earthworx) v. Scugog (Township) [2011] 0.1. No (Div. Ct.), 10. He erred in law by not properly applying the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, -. THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S JURISDICTION IS: The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to s. 6(I)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act which is an appeal from a final order of a judge of the Superior Court of

12 - 5-5 Justice. Leave to appeal is not required. The order in question is not an order referred to in clause 19(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act nor is it an order for which any other Act r provides an appeal to the Divisional Court. November 15,2013 MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter E.J. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: / Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant (Appellant) TO: GARDINER ROBERTS LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 3100 Toronto ON M5H 3Y2, Canada Ian Blue LS#: Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Respondent (Respondent in appeal) legal_

13 J I j J _ J -- -l J 1 I - 1 -}---l-l.11 BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. d THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF Applicant (Appellant) an BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) Court File No: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Proceeding commenced at Toronto NOTICE OF APPEAL MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter EJ. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant (Appellant) 0")

14 ADMINISTRATION_ Tab 2

15 7 r'" j r Court File Nos.: 3992/13 & 4229/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MURRAY BETWEEN: ) ) ) ) WEDNESDAY, THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. -",, ' I', I and- E CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON / Applicant ( Respondent AND BETWEEN: I i THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant and- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent r '! ' '::--, Ii I, r" " ORDER THIS APPLICATION brought by Burlington Airpark Inc. for a determination of its rights under the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Aeronautic Act, R.S,C and for other relief and THIS APPLICATION brought by The Corporation of the City of Burlington for a determination of its right to pass and enforce provincial bylaws relating to landfill operations at the Burlington Executive Airport and for other relief were heard together on October 4,2013 at the Court House, 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton. Ontario.

16 8 -- ON READING the application records, factums and brief of authorities of Burlington Airpark Inc. and The Corporation of the City of Burlington, filed, and on hearing the submissions of counsel for both parties, 1. THIS COURT ORDERS AND DECLARES that the City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ) is valid and binding upon Burlington Airpark Inc. in respect to its landfill activities at the Burlington Executive Airport. 2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the application of Burlington Airpark Inc. is hereby dismissed. 3. THIS COURT ORDERS that The Corporation of the City of Burlington is entitled to its costs of these appiications. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, then the court will accept brief written submissions from both parties. The City of Burlington shall have its submissions served and filed by December 4, 2013 and Airpark shall have its reply submissions served and filed by December 18, 2013., \. NOV 21 2m3 SlJPEHIOH r.;ourt OF JJSnG!; M!LTOI~

17 : - --~. -'I I ) ~ J I',? L J.. J <". J! I, I /. " J fiurungton AIRPARK INC. Applicant - and- THE CORPOI,ATION OF TI1E CITY OF aurllngton Respondent Court File No THE CORPORATfON OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant - anc]- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Responde"t Court File No _ _ _..._._ ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTiCE PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT MILTON ORDER GAR,OINER ROBERTS LLP lawyers 40 King streei Wesi Suile 3100, Scotia Plaza Toronlo, Ontario M5H 3Y2 Ian Blue, Q.C. LSUC No J Tel: Fax: Lawyers for the Respondent, The Corporation of the City of Burlington ff)l10nto: "11"1529\1 (J01040) (0

18 AOMINISTAAT10N_ Tab 3

19 10 r CITATION: Burlington Airpark v. City of Burlington, 2013 ONSC 6990 COURT FILE NO.: 3992/13 & 4229/13 DATE: AMENDED: SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO r I RE: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC., Applicant AND: r I, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, Respondent THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, Applicant AND: r I BEFORE: Murray J. BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC., Respondent ~ COUNSEL: Peter E.J. Wells, Counsel for Burlington Airpark Inc. Glenn Grenier, Counsel for Burlington Airpark Inc. r I, Ian A. Blue, Q.C., Counsel for the Corporation of the City of Burlington Alma Husa, Counsel for the Corporation of the City of Burlington HEARD: October 4,2013 ENDORSEMENT r [I] There are two applications before the C01.llt. The Application ofthe Corporation of the City of Burlington [2] The Corporation of the City of Burlington (hereinafter "Burlington") is a municipality in the Region of Halton. In its application, Burlington seeks: r I '. ' I, rl, ' r a) an order determining Burlington's rights under the Municipal Act 2001, SO 2001 c. and the Constitution Act, 1867 to enforce provincial by-laws relating to fill operations at an aerodrome operated by the respondent;

20 11 ~,, b) a declaration that Burlington's by-law is valid and binding upon the respondent in respect to its activities at the airport; and r,i - I"!, I c) an order requiring the respondent to comply with the by-law forthwith. The Application of Burlington Airpark Inc. [3] The applicant Burlington Airpark Inc. (hereinafter "Airpark") is the owner and operator of the Burlington Executive Airport which was established in It is a registered aerodrome under part 111, section of the Canadian Aviation Regulations made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act. The applicant says that it is expanding the facilities of the aerodrome by improving and adding to runways, taxiways, aprons, hangers and terminal facilities. It asserts that Burlington has no jurisdiction to regulate fill operations related to the improvement of airport facilities including the construction of runways. Among other things, the improvements will involve the use of fill to bring the elevation of the westem airport lands to substantially the same grade as the existing main runway so as to allow safer flight operations at the airport. The applicant Airpark Inc. seeks; a) a declaration from the court that Burlington has no authority to direct or attempt to direct the marmer in which construction of aerodrome improvements are to be carried out; and b) an order directing Burlington to cease such activity. [4] By order of the Honourable Madam Justice Miller dated August 2, 2013, both applications are to be heard together. Background Information r, i I [5] The aerodrome is located in the northem and rural part of Burlington. It is located adjacent to the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area and is located within the Protected Countryside Area of the province's Greenbelt Plan. The land uses immediately abutting the airport include agricultrrral and rural residential land uses. The airport and adjacent properties are in an area of Burlington not serviced by municipal water or sanitary sewers. Agricultrrral property owners in the area rely on groundwater accessed through wells for potable water and dispose of sewage through septic tank systems.

21 12,-! [6] There has been an ongoing dispute between the owners of Airpark and Burlington with respect to on-going fill operations maintained by Airpark. The owners of Airpark have consistently taken the position that its fill operation was not subject to review or regulation by Burlington because the airport is subject only to federal jurisdiction and regulation. Much debate has taken place since 2008 and has related to, inter alia, whether the fill being used by the airport is clean. Although Airpark has made efforts to persuade Burlington that fill it is using on its premises is clean and presents no risk to neighbouring properties, the owners of Airpark have taken the position that as a matter of law, Burlington has no jurisdiction to regulate its fill operations. r ;' ~! r r [7] The issue came to a head in the spring of 2013 when Burlington started to receive significant complaints about the continuing fill operation at the aerodrome including complaints related to grading, drainage, noise, dust, traffic safety and possible effects of the fill on groundwater relied upon by neighbouring residents for drinking water. Burlington had a number of concerns including: the amount of fill deposited on the airport premises, whether the airport property is being used for a commercial landfill business unrelated to the airport, and the adverse drainage effects from the imposition of significant gradient and slope changes on the airport property that have been created by the deposit of fill. Fill samples provided by Airpark to Burlington have reinforced concerns that fill being dumped on the premises may result in contamination by pollutants of area groundwater. [8] On May 3, 2013, Burlington issued an order to Airpark to comply with the by-law by obtaining a Permit for the ongoing fill operation at the airport. Violation notices were subsequently issued notifying that Airpark was in breach of the order to comply and in violation of the by-law. Owners of the airport refused to cease accepting fill on its premises and commenced its own application to prohibit the city from enforcing its by-laws against it. In sum, Burlington indicated its intention to enforce its by-law and Airpark indicated that it will not comply. The result of this stand-off is the two applications before the court. [9] An application by Burlington for an injunction to restrain the delivery of fill to the airport lands was settled by Airpark agreeing to suspend all fill deliveries pending the outcome of these applications.

22 r,,- Analysis [10] I am not going to reproduce the entire by-law in this decision. I will refer to some of the relevant sections of the Burlington by-law. 13 r- I ~ S. 2.1 of the by-law provides that no person shall place or dump fill on or alter the grade of any lands in the city without having first obtained a Site Alteration Permit; S. 2.4(a) requires a person applying for a Permit to certify that the fill contains no contaminants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act; 3. An applicant for a Permit must submit a Control Plan as part of its application which must contain, inter alia, a map showing the location of the site, the site boundaries and the number of factors, the current and proposed use of the site, location of lakes, streams, wetlands, chrumels, ditches and other watercourses and other bodies of water on the site, the location of the predominant soil types, the existing site topography at a contour level not to exceed 0.5 m, the proposed final elevations of the site, the location and dimensions of temporary soil or dirt stockpiles, and provisions maintaining site control measures during construction. 4. S. 2.6 requires that the Control Plan be certified by an Ontario professional engineer. [11] Other sections of the by-law provide that the applicant for a Permit may be required to enter into an agreement to provide security for its obligations under the by-law and Permit and such other requirements as the City considers necessary to ensure that the work will be in accordance Witll the fill Permit. The City may also require random testing of any fill before it is placed on the site or removed from it and may impose terms and conditions and design guidelines when it issues the Permit. [12] It is not disputed that the airport is subject to the "Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices-TP 3128 (revised 03/2005)" which is published by Transport Canada under Part III of the Canadian Aviation Regulations SORl These federal standru'ds deal 1

23 14 r 1 I. i I. with such things as slopes on runways, surfaces of runways, runway shoulders and the slopes and strength of runway shoulders. There are no federal Standards which prescribe or recommend the fill to be used in grading of, or constrnction of runways or shoulders or of other facilities. [l3] Burlington Airpark relies on the fact that Burlington employees have previously advised Burlington that it had no regulatory power over the aerodrome and that the fill was related to Aeronautics and, as a result, for a significant period of time Burlington made no effort to have the applicant apply for a Site Alteration Permit under its by-law. With respect, this opinion - even if relied on by Burlington - has no bearing on the answer to the question raised in this case. Similarly, if constrnction by Airpark has taken place without complying with the bylaw to the knowledge of Burlington, this fact has no bearing on whether the municipality has authority to regulate the fill being used by Airpark although it may have a bearing on Burlington's ability to enforce its by-law with respect to construction already completed. This too is an issue which need not be decided in this case. The only issue is whether the City of Burlington by-law applies to fill operations being conducted by Airpark. [14] The fact that Airpark owns the property does not mean that non-aeronautics activity carried out on the property is free of provincial regulation. For example, if an owner of airport lands constructed and built a waste disposal plant on property owned by the airport, such a facility would be separate, distinct and unrelated to the business of the airport and would be subject to municipal and provincial regulation. It is a question of fact whether the owners of the airport are carrying on a commercial fill operation for profit which is unrelated to the functioning of an airport. If Airpark is carrying on a commercial landfill business on airport land and such an operation is unrelated to aeronautics, it is subject to provincial and/or mnnicipal regulation Ontario Inc. v. Scugog (Township), [2011] OJ. No.2445 is a decision of the Divisional COUli which decided this very point. In the case before the court, there are facts which may support a conclusion that Airpark is operating a commercial landfill business unrelated to the grading of an additional runway or to other airport related construction. However, this is an issue which also need not be decided in this case. I am deciding the case on the basis that the fill required by Burlington Airpark Inc. is related to the construction of various airport facilities :i I, including runways.

24 15 r, I", [15] As has been said by the Supreme Court of Canada, the first step in the resolution of a constitutional issue involving the division of powers is an analysis of the pith and substance of the impugned legislation. See for example, A.G. of Quebec v. Lacombe, [2010] 2 SCR 453. In Lacombe, the court considered a municipal by-law designed to regulate the location of water aerodromes in the municipality. The court held that the location of aerodromes is a matter within exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to Parliament's jurisdiction to legislate aeronautics and held that the impugned legislation was, in pith and substance, the regulation of aeronautics. In Air Canada v. Ontario (Liquor Control Board), [1997] 2 SCR 581 at paragraph 72, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the federal aeronautics jurisdiction "encompasses not only the regulation of the operation of aircraft, but also the regulation of the operation of airports" and that the federal jurisdiction extended to the location and design of airports. r- i, r r,,! i,- [16] There can be little doubt in this case that the pith and substance of the by-law made pursuant to the Municipal Act is a valid exercise of property and civil rights under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and is a valid provincial law. However, this does not end the inquiry. The court must decide whether, in accordance with the constitutional doctrine of inteljurisdictional immunity, the by-law impairs the core content of federal legislative power over aeronautics. In Attorney General of Quebec v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, [2010] 2 SCR 536, the Supreme Court asked the question this way: does the impugned legislation trench on the protected core of a federal competence? If so, the second step is to determine whether the provincial laws effect on the exercise of protected federal power is sufficiently serious to invoke the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. In Bell Canada v. Quebec (Commission de sante et de la securite du travail du Quebec), [1988] 1 S.C.R 49 at para. 250, the Supreme COUlt stated that in determining whether an impugned law comes within the essential federal jurisdiction, the court must decide if it is part of the "basic, minimum and unassailable content" of the aeronautics power. As stated in Canadian Western Bank v. Alberta, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 3 at para 77, the core of the federal power is the authority that is absolutely necessaly to enable Parliament "to achieve the purpose for which exclusive legislative jurisdiction was conferred." [17] I conclude for reasons set out below that for Burlington to require compliance with its by-law will not impair the federal aeronautics power or create an operational conflict between,-,

25 " 16 the provisions ofthe by-laws and the federal aeronautics power. In other words, the by-law does not trench on the protected core of federal competence over aeronautics. [18] In Construction Montcalm v, The Minimum Wage Commission, [1979]1 SCR 754, the Supreme Court of Canada held that some provincial laws will be applicable to airports because they do not impair an essential part of a federal competence. In Construction Montcalm, the Court held that the wages paid by an independent contractor to its employees engaged in the construction of runways at Mirabel airport is so far removed from aerial navigation or from the operation of an aircraft that it cannot be said that the power to regulate this matter forms an integral part of federal competence over aeronautics. Airpark relies on Construction Montcalm and in particular the following statement made by Mr. Justice Beetz at p. 771: Similarly, the design of the future airport, its dimensions, the materials to be incorporated into the various buildings, runways and structures, and other similar specifications are', from a legislative point of view and apart from contract, matters of exclusive federal concern. The reason is that decisions made on these subjects will be permanently reflected in the structure of the finished product and are such as to have a direct effect upon its operational qualities and, therefore upon its suitability for the purposes of Aeronautics. But the mode or manner of carrying out the same decisions in the act of constructing an airport stand on a different footing. Thus the requirement that workers wear a protective helmet on all construction sites including the construction site of a new airport has everything to do with construction and with provincial safety regulations and nothing to do with aeronautics. [19] The general statements made by Justice Beetz in Construction Montcalm do not compel,... I!, I a conclusion that the Burlington by-law is an unacceptable intrusion on the core aeronautics power. First, the by-law is designed to regulate the quality of fill and to prevent the use of toxic or contaminated fill in the municipality. It is not targeted legislation as in Lacombe. There is little doubt that the runway construction must comply with federal specifications relating to slopes, surfaces of runways, runway shoulders and the slopes and strength of nl1lway shoulders. However, requiring Airpark to use clean fill regulated by the municipality for the benefit of other residents in the municipality will not be permanently reflected in the structure of the finished product in the sense meant by Justice Beetz. The by-law is not an attempt by the municipality to regulate slopes or surfaces of runways, runway shoulders or the slopes and strength of runway r shoulders. While regulating the quality of fill may have an impact on the manner of carrying out

26 17, r i a decision to build airport facilities in accordance with federal specifications, such regulation will not have any direct effect upon the operational qualities or suitability of the finished product which will be used for purposes of aeronautics. As a result, the by-law does not impact or intrude on the core of the federal power which, as noted above, is the authority that is absolutely necessary to enable Parliament "to achieve the purpose for which exclusive legislative jurisdiction was conferred." [20] This is the same conclusion reached by the Divisional COUli in the case mentioned above, Ontario Inc. v. Scugog (Township). In that case, Madam Justice Swinton decided based on the evidence before the court that the applicant was engaged in a commercial landfill operation and was not presently engaged in the construction of an aerodrome or runway. Therefore the applicant was found not to be engaged in activity related to aeronautics and the commercial landfill business was subject to valid provincial and Township regulation. However, Madam Justice Swinton concluded that if she was wrong and the activity was related to aeronautics because of the applicant's intention to build a runway sometime in the future, then the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity did not prevent the application of the municipal fill by-law to the applicant in that case. She stated at para. 42 as follows: r I r. [21] In my view, the Township's fill by-law does not prohibit the use of lands for use as an airport, as in COPA (a reference to Attorney General o/quebec v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, supra). Rather, it prohibits site alteration unless certain requirements are met. For example, the old by-law prohibits the dumping of refuse. The new one has more detailed requirements for a survey showing relevant topographic and drainage patterns, description of the fill and the requirement to meet certain soil contamination standards, a description of proposed haul routes and requirements of financial security - for example, in relation to the maintenance of roads. However, these measures are all regulatory ofthe field processor. They do not prevent the use of the land for an airport or the future construction of an airport on the site." In Regina v. TNT Canada Inc., [1986] OJ. No. 1322, the Ontario COUli of Appeal concluded that provincial environmental legislation regulating the transportation of PCB waste without a certificate of approval was valid and applied to an interprovincial trucking company. The regulation in question was intra vires the provincial Legislature and the court concluded that its "limited and necessaty effect on interprovincial transport companies in its general application r.

27 18 r: i. to all transportation within the province does not render that application to such companies ultra vires." At para. 18 of that decision the Court of Appeal held that: The provincial legislation in issue does not "sterilize" the federal undertaking nor does it interfere with its "essential functions" to a "substantial degree": Winner, supra. Indeed, in my view, it does not impair the respondent's basic functions in any degree. The provincial legislation has not been enacted to regulate undertakings "qua federal organizations" or to regulate interprovincial carriers in "some primary federal aspect": Montcalm Construction Inc. v. Minimum Wage Com'n et al. (1978), 93 D.L.R. (3d) 641 at pp , [1979] 1 S.C.R. 754 at p. 774 sub nom. Construction Montcalm Inc. v. Minimum Wage Com'n, 79 C.L.L.C. D ,190, 25 N.R. 1 (Beetz 1.). Rather the legislation has been enacted from the interrelated provincial aspects of regulating the use of the provincial highways for the protection of the environment (land, air, water) and for the safety, health and welfare of the province's residents. As put by counsel for the appellant the purpose of O. Reg is to ensure (as far as reasonably possible) that no harm will be done to persons or property in Ontario by the carriage of PCB waste, and that if such harm does occur there will be insurance coverage to compensate. [22] The TNT case is analogous to the case at bar. The City of Burlington by-law was designed to regulate the use of landfill for the protection of the environment and for the safety, health and welfare of municipal residents. It was not enacted for the purpose of regulating federal undertakings. As with the provincial regulation in TNT Canada Inc., the Burlington bylaw does not impair the core of the federal power. [23] This is the same conclusion reached by Madam Justice Swinton in Ontario Inc. v. Scugog (Township). In that case, Madam. Justice Swinton stated at para. 46 that:,., r!,-,! In any event, I fail to see how the Township'S by-laws regulating filling and grading of the land that may someday be used as a runway and an aerodrome impairs the core of the federal aeronautics power, pmticularly when the requirements of the by-laws seek to prevent the deposit of refuse or "putrescible material' in the fill and impose a security deposit to cover the costs that might accrue to the municipality, including possible damage to roads from the haulage activity. I note that nothing in the evidence suggests that "Earthworx" has been prevented from selecting appropriate materials to deposit on the property for a proposed airport operation. [24] Notwithstanding that the decision of the Divisional Court on the constitutional validity of the Scugog by-law may be characterized as obiter dicta, for the reasons given above, I agree with Madam Justice Swinton's conclusion.,.

28 ,- r " r I r i I, J Conclusion [25] The application of the City of Burlington is allowed. The City of Burlington is entitled to a declaration that Burlington's by-law is valid and binding upon Burlington Airpark Inc. in respect to its landfill activities at the airport. [26] The City has requested an order requiring the respondent to comply with the by-law forthwith. This court has determined that the by-law is valid and binding on Burlington Airpark Inc. The issue of enforcement is properly left to the municipal authorities. [27] The application of Burlington Airpark Inc. is dismissed. 19 [28] The City of Burlington is entitled to its costs of these applications. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, I will accept brief written submissions from both parties. The City of Burlington shall have its submissions served and filed by December 4, 2013 and Airpark shall have its reply submissions served and filed by December 18, j : MUlTay J. Date: November 13,2013

29 20 Court File No. C S1-~C COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant (Appellant) - and- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON. Respondent (Respondent in appeal). AND BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant (Respondent in appeal) - and- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent (Appellant) APPLICA TrONS UNDER Rule 14.05(3)(d) and (g) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION The Applicant intends to question the constitutional applicability of the City oj Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ) in the attempted regulation of the applicants construction of runway, taxiway, apron, hanger and terminal facilities at Burlington Executive Airport, registered aerodrome CZBA. C~~RLT 11! APPEAL FOR ONTARJO.. O/DEPOSS NOV

30 -2-21 The question is to be argued on a date to be fixed by the Court of Appeal. The following are the material facts giving rise to the constitutional question: I. The applicant owns and operates the Burlington Executive Airport which occupies land between Bell School Line and Appleby Line within the bowldaries of the City of Burlington; 2. The Burlington Executive Airport was established in It is a registered aerodrome under Part III, Section I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations which are made Wlder the authority granted the Minister of Transport Wlder the Aeronautics Act. The Burlington Executive Airport has received the designation "CZBA" from Transport Canada and is listed with that designation in the Canadian Flight Supplement published by Transport Canada. 1 i 3. The applicant is expanding the facilities of the Burlington Executive Airport by improving and adding to its runways, taxiways, aprons, hangers and terminal facilities. This activity has been reported to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the requirements of section (3) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. 4. These improvements involve the use of fill to bring the elevation of the western Airport lands to substantially the same grade as the existing main runway so as to allow safe flight operations at the Burlington Executive Airport. The fill work has been ongoing since 2008, and the respondent's staff have been aware of this work since at least September The fill work is now over 90% complete. The applicant has in fact built a portion of a newly paved runway 09/27 (replacing an older grass strip), and associated taxiway, a hangar, apron and a separate taxiway servicing same on various portions of the filled lands during this period. 5. The respondent previously accepted that any activities related to aeronautics, including any expansion of existing airparks or airports are subject to Federal regulation under Transport Canada, and are not required to comply with local or provincial plans, policies, by-laws or regulations. More particularly, the respondent previously accepted

31 that the grading and filling work at the Airport was for aeronautical purposes, fell under Federal Jurisdiction and that municipal by-laws did not apply. 6. On or about May 3, 2013 the respondent purported to issue an order to comply that directed the applicant to stop site alterations immediately and apply for a Site Alteration Permit. 7. Since that date the respondent has taken and threatens to take steps that would interfere with the applicant's lawful operation of the Burlington Executive Airport. The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question: 8. The alleged acts referred to in the purported order to comply dated May 3, 20]3 issued by the respondent relate solely to the construction of an aerodrome. 9. Aeronautics, including the location and construction of ground facilities for air navigation, are within the exclusive legislative authority of the Federal government. r 10. The City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ), which is stated to be the basis upon which the order to comply was issued by the respondent, is constitutionally inapplicable to the construction for improving an aerodrome on the applicant's property. To the extent the respondent attempts to apply the said By-law to the construction of aeronautical facilities, it is acting beyond its jurisdiction and intruding upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government over aeronautics and the regulation thereof by the Federal Government pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S., 1985, c. A-2 and the regulations thereunder..~.

32 ii.i Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit. November 15,2013 MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter EJ. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: I Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant (Appellant) TO: GARDINER ROBERTS LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 3100 Toronto ON M5H 3Y2, Canada Ian Blue LS#: 1464lJ Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Respondent (Respondent in appeal) LEGAl_

33 J! ) I J.I - )-, l-~-j ~1 ~o)~~-j BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. d THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF Applicant (AppelJant) an BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) Court File No: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Proceeding commenced at Toronto NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter E.J. Wells L8#: Tel: (416) /Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier L8#: 32272T Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu L8#: 60647W Tel: Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant (Appellant) I\).j::>.

34 25 Court File No. C S"1... 1C COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONT ARlO BETWEEN: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant (Appellant).. and.. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) AND BETWEEN: -, THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant (Respondent in appeal).. and.. BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent (Appellant) APPLICATIONS UNDER Rule 14.05(3)(d) and (g) NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION The Applicant intends to question the constitutional applicability of the City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By.. law (By.. law ) in the attempted regulation of the applicants construction of runway, taxiway, apron, hanger and terminal facilities at Burlington Executive Airport, registered aerodrome CZBA. C~~r&OFDAPPEAL FOR ONTARJO I DEPOSE; NOV

35 ~ I The question is to be argued on a date to be fixed by the Court of Appeal. The following are the material facts giving rise to the constitutional question: I. The applicant owns and operates the Burlington Executive Airport which occupies land between Bell School Line and Appleby Line within the boundaries of the City of Burlington; ~, 2. The Burlington Executive Airport was established in It is a registered aerodrome under Part IIJ, Section I of the Canadian Aviation Regulations which are made under the authority granted the Minister of Transport under the Aeronautics Act. The Burlington Executive Airport has received the designation "CZBA" from Transport Canada and is listed with that designation in the Canadian Flight Supplement published by Transport Canada. 3. The applicant is expanding the facilities of the Burlington Executive Airport by improving and adding to its runways, taxiways, aprons, hangers and terminal facilities. This activity has been reported to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the requirements of section (3) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. -, 4. These improvements involve the use of fill to bring the elevation of the western Airport lands to substantially the same grade as the existing main runway so as to allow safe flight operations at the Burlington Executive Airport. The fill work has been ongoing since 2008, and the respondent's staff have been aware of this work since at least September The fill work is now over 90% complete. The applicant has in fact built a portion of a newly paved runway 09/27 (replacing an older grass strip), and associated taxiway, a hangar, apron and a separate taxiway servicing same on various portions of the filled lands during this period. 5. The respondent previously accepted that any activities related to aeronautics, including any expansion of existing airparks or airports are subject to Federal regulation under Transport Canada, and are not required to comply with local or provincial plans, policies, by-laws or regulations. More particularly, the respondent previously accepted

36 r r r I that the grading and filling work at the Airport was for aeronautical purposes, fell under Federal Jurisdiction and that municipal by-laws did not apply. 6. On or about May 3, 2013 the respondent purported to issue an order to comply that directed the applicant to stop site alterations immediately and apply for a Site Alteration Permit. 7. Since that date the respondent has taken and threatens to take steps that would interfere with the applicant's lawful operation of the Burlington Executive Airport. The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question: 8. The alleged acts referred to in the purported order to comply dated May 3, 2013 issued by the respondent relate solely to the construction of an aerodrome Aeronautics, including the location and construction of ground facilities for air navigation, are within the exclusive legislative authority of the Federal government. 10. The City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ), which is stated to be the basis upon which the order to comply was issued by the respondent, is constitutionally inapplicable to the construction for improving an aerodrome on the applicant's property. To the extent the respondent attempts to apply the said By-law to the construction of aeronautical facilities, it is acting beyond its jurisdiction and intruding upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government over aeronautics and the regulation thereof by the Federal Government pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S., 1985, c. A-2 and the regulations thereunder.

37 j.i t J ' -.e, ) J ) J- 1 \ 1 J BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant (Appellant) and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent (Respondent in appeal) Court File No: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Proceeding commenced at Toronto NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter EJ. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: / Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant (Appellant) ~ CD

38 ADMINISTRATION_ TabS

39 30 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No.?"QQ:;L/13 r BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant - and- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent APPLICATION UNDER Rule 14.05(3)( d) and (g) TO THE RESPONDENT: NOTICE OF APPLICATION A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The claim made by the applicant appears on the following page. THIS APPLICATION will come on for a hearing on Wednesday the 28 th day of August, 2013 at 10:00 0' clock in the forenoon, at 491 Steeles Ave E. Milton ON. -, IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to be served with any documents in the application, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance in Form 38A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, and you or your lawyer must appear at the hearing. ~ I IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE COURT OR TO EXAMINE OR CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES ON THE APPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in addition to serving your notice of appearance, serve a copy of the evidence on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and tile it, with proof of service, in the court office where the application is to be heard as soon as possible, but at least four days before the hearing. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF

40 -2-31 YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAYBE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. Date July 17,2013 Issued by ----t+97~' Address of 491 Steeles Ave E. Milton ON court office L9T I Y7 ~, TO: Corporation of the City of Burlington 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L 7R 3Z6, Canada I'..

41 The applicant makes application for: APPLICATION (a) an order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(d) declaring the applicant's rights under the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. A-2 as amended ("Aeronautics Act") and the regulations thereunder; (b) an order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)( d) declaring the applicant's rights under the City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration Bylaw (By-law ); more specifically a declaration that such by-law does not apply to the applicant's operations and construction of aerodrome facilities on its premises; (c) an order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(d) declaring that a certain purported order to comply issued by the respondent on or about May 3, 2013 is null and void and of no legal effect; ". ~ I -, (d) (e) an injunction pursuant to Rule l4.05(3)(g) ancillary to the relief claimed in subparagraphs (a) through (c) enjoining the respondent and anyone acting on its behalf from interfering or attempting to interfere with the applicant's operations and construction of aerodrome facilities on its premises; its costs, together with H.S.T.; (f) such fl.lrther or other ancillary relief as seems just in the circumstances. 2. The grounds for the application are: (a) The applicant owns and operates the Burlington Executive Airport which occupies land between Bell School Line and Appleby Line within the boundaries of the City of Burlington; (b) The Burlington Executive Airport was established in It is a registered aerodrome under Prot III, Section of the Canadian

42 -4-33 ;..;:.., I, Aviation Regulations which are made under the authority granted the Minister of Transport under the Aeronautics Act. The Burlington Executive Airport has received the designation "CZBA" from Transport Canada and is listed with that designation in the Canadian Flight Supplement published by Transport Canada...::,...\ - (c) The applicant is expanding the facilities of the Burlington Executive Airport by improving and adding to its runways, taxiways, aprons, hangers and terminal facilities. This activity has been reported to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the requirements of section (3) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. (d) These improvements involve the use of fill to bring the elevation of the western Airport lands to substantially the sanle grade as the existing main runway so as to allow safe flight operations at the Burlington Executive Airport. The fill work has been ongoing since 2008, and the respondent's staff have been aware of this work since at least September The till work is now over 90% complete. The applicant has in fact built a portion of a newly paved runway 09/27 (replacing an older grass strip), and associated taxiway, a hangar, apron and a separate taxiway servicing same on various portions of the filled lands during this period. (e) The respondent previously accepted that any activities related to aeronautics, including any expansion of existing airparks or airports are subject to Federal regulation under Transport Canada, and are not required to comply with local or provincial plans, policies, by-laws or regulations. More particularly, the respondent previously accepted that the grading and filling work at the Airport was for aeronautical purposes, fell under Federal Jurisdiction and that municipal by-laws did not apply. (1) On or about May 3, 2013 the respondent purported to issue an order to comply that directed the applicant to stop site alterations immediately and apply for a Site Alteration Permit.

43 r, (g) Since that date the respondent has taken and threatens to take steps that would interfere with the applicant's lawful operation of the Burlington Executive Airport. application: The following documentary evidence will be used at the hearing of the (a) (b) affidavits of Vincent Rossi and others to be sworn and delivered in due course; and such furth.er or other material as counsel may advise and the Court may permit. July 17,2013 MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter EJ. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) /Fax: (416) Brent McPherson LS#: 37214K Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W TeI: (416) / Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Applicant LEGAL_

44 . \.. \ r ' J,t (j -".-1 -I -I.J BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. d THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF Applicant an BURLINGTON Respondent Court File No: 3ct'92.3 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Proceeding commenced at Milton NOTICE OF APPLICATION MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter E.J. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) IFax: (416) Brent McPherson LS#: 37214K Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: (416) I Fax: (416) La\\'Yers for the Applicant en 01

45 ADMINISTRATION Tab 6

46 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Court File No. 36 I 42--z-Cj (3 BETWEEN: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON. ~+'I!-~'t~ :'.\~i.. It J:'l ~ ",.~~.. ~r::; "'<.r:.~.~ ~i\."t};"'".' ~.,,= \1'!"7 Jt~.~~.:.~: :: '~ \\?t: -. i'::~~ ~:,..,.,...,.,. _'?,., ;«,' - and- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant Respondent TO; \<,..::.~~ THE RESPONDENT NOTICE OF APPLICATION A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED by the applicant. The claim made by the applicant appears on the following pages. THIS APPLICATION will come on for a hearing at the same time as or immediately following the hearing of the application in court file 3992/13 on a date and time to be fixed by the Court on Friday August 2, 2013, at the Courthouse, 491 Steeles Ave. E., Milton, Ontario. IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION, to receive notice of any step in the application or to.be served with any documents in the application, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must forthwith prepare a notice of appearance in Form 38A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, and you or your lawyer must appear at the hearing. IF YOU WISH TO PRESENT AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO THE COURT OR TO EXAMINE OR CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES ON THE APPLICATION, you or your lawyer must, in addition to serving your notice of appearance, serve a copy of the evidence on the applicant's lawyer or, where the applicant does not have a lawyer, serve it on the applicant, and file it, with proof of service, in the court office where the application is to be heard as soon as possible, but at least two days before the hearing. IF YOU FAIL TO APPEARATTHE HEARING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE

47 2 37,-'. r- THIS APPLICATION BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE. Date: JUL Issued by: Local Registrar Q{~. Address of Court Office 491 Steeles Avenue E. Milton, ON L9T 1Y7 r I -.! TO: McMillan LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Peter Wells Tel: (416) /Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Respondent I

48 ~ APPLICATION 1. The Applicant (city) makes a application for: a. An order pursuant to Rule 14.05(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a determination of the City's right under the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, '. c. 25 and the Constitution Act, 1867 to pass and enforce provincial bylaws relating to landfill operations at the Burlington Executive Airport (Airport), notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the Federal Govemment over aeronautics and the regulation 'thereof pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, RSC 1985, c.a-2, as amended; b. A declaration that the City of Burlingto.n Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-Law) is valid and binding upon the r I : Respondent (Airpark) in respect to its activities at the Airport; c. An order requiring the Respondent to comply with the By-Law forthwith; d. The city's costs of this Application on a substantial indemnity scale; and.-. e. Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court consider just. 2. The grounds for the Application are: a. The City does not contest and agrees that all aeronautical operations at the Airport are under federal jurisdiction due to Parliament's undisputed jurisdiction over aeronautics. The City maintains, however, that the By Law applies to Airpark's fill activities at the Airport. b. The City believes that the Airpark is operating an unpermitted fill site at the Airport as for the purpose of generating profit for Airpark or its owner r Vincenzo Rossi and is not simply bringing fill to the Airport as part of planned and imminent Airport expansion. I,I I

49 -.,I.,..-..-' 4 c. Airpark commenced filling operations at the Airport in Airpark did not consult with the City with respect to the fill operation or any contemplated expansion plans prior to commencing the filling operations. The City became aware of Airpark's fill operations through resident complaints made in the fall of d. On October 30, 2008 City staff met with Airpark owner Vincenzo Rossi and the Airport Manager ("Airpark representatives") regarding the fill operations. Airpark took the position that it was not subject to City review or regulation of its fill operations because it was operating an Airport and therefore only subject to Federal regulations and requirements. At that time, City staff were advised by Airpark representatives that the fill being brought onto the Airport was clean and that there was soil testing to verify this claim. 39 c-';,, " rl, ri e. The City staff met again with Airpark representatives on November 25, City staff were advised that despite the fact that Airpark was having fill deposited at the Airport property for a future expansion, there were no expansion plans to show City staff and it would require some 250,000 tonnes of fill. Again, City staff received assurances from Airpark representatives that the fill being deposited onto the Airport property was clean. f. In December 2008, a single soil test report was provided to the City for review. City staff expressed concern to Airpark representatives with having only one soil sample to review for the large volume of fill being imported to the Airport property. '-' I I, g. Further to its concerns, City staff requested a further meeting with Airpark representatives on February 11, Once again, City staff were advised by Airpark representatives that despite the fact that Airpark continued to have fill deposited at the Airport property for a future

50 5 40 r r expansion, there were no expansion plans or grading plans that had been prepared. h. At the February 11 meeting, Airpark representatives provided City staff. with a general explanation of what the Airpark envisaged as its expansion plan. Airpark representatives indicated that: r--' " il - :r a heliport would be developed at the southem end of the Airport abutting Appleby Line, and that approximately 45,000 cubic metres of fill would be required at that location; subject to obtaining funding, expanded airport facilities including hangers and a new terminal would be developed at r :! -'!!. i-,i ".~. i. the northem end of the Airport, and that approximately 205,000 cubic metres of fill would be required at that location; 3. the existing paved runway would be widened and an adjacent taxiway developed. Airpark representatives advised that an independent consultant, David Hanna, was helping to coordinate the fill operation. Mr. Hanna advised that the fill being deposited was being sourced from a Ministry of Transportation project at the Queen Elizabeth Way I Bronte Road ~. interchange, and that soil samples were being tested at regular intervals. j. A public information meeting was held at the Airport on February 17, 2009 with Airpark representatives, City staff, Region of Halton staff, and local residents in attendance. At the public information meeting, Airport representatives displayed a plan dated June 2007, prepared by KMB Aviation Consulting Group Inc., that depicted only a conceptual Airport expansion plan.

51 6 41 k. At both the February 11, 2009 meeting with City staff, and the February 17, 2009 neighborhood meeting at the Airport, Airpark representatives advised that the importing of fill was expected to be complete by the beginning of summer ~,, I. In Ma~ch 2013, the City again began to receive a significant number of complaints regarding the continuing fill operation at the Airport including, but not limited to, grading, drainage, noise, dust, traffic safety and, most importantly, concerns with respect to impact on groundwater relied upon for drinking water. I r r I m. The above complaints led staff to investigate the current status of the fill operation at the Airport, re-examine its options to regulate the fill operation, make inquiries of other Federal, Provincial, and other municipal agencies, and to discuss the issues with Airpark representatives. n. Fill operations remain ongoing and did not end in the summer of 2009, contrary to Airpark's representation; o. To date, it is estimated that at least 500,000 cubic metres of fill (more than twice the amount represented by Airpark was necessary) has been deposited, and fill operations continue; ~, 1 I, ~ i,, p. Notwithstanding the above, there has been no development of the heliport, new hangers or new terminal which had been significant components of the stated reason for bringing fill onto the site. q. Based on a tipping fee per load of fill of $85.00, the fill earns revenues of approximately $10 per cubic meter offill, split 50:50 between Airpark and KPM Industries Ltd. carrying on business as King Paving; ~, r. The fill originally being deposited on the Airport property was described as coming from a single Ministry of Transportation project within the

52 7 42 Region of Halton that was subject to soil testing. At some point in the last four years, Airpark began selling dumping tickets and accepting fill at the Airport from projects throughout the Greater Toronto Area.,- s. It does not appear that David Hanna, or any other qualified independent contractor, ever coordinated the fill operations. Rather, the hauler/shipper of a significant portion of the incoming fill, King Paving, is acting as carrier, receiver and/or coordinator of fill operations on the Airport property. t. The Region of Halton has confirmed that it has not received any soil test repo'rts u. As part of its spring 2013 review of the Airpark's fill operations at the Airpark, City staff met with Airpark staff to gather information, to express concern about aspects of the fill operation, and to advise that the City's position was that Airpark was required to comply with the City's Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law No (By-law).,-,,.. v. Airpark refused to comply with the By-law or provide any reports or studies or plans for the City's approval. w. On May 3, 2013, the City issued the Airpark an Order to Comply with its Site Alteration By-law, namely to obtain a permit for site alteration for the ongoing fill operation at the Airport. The Order to Comply required Airpark to take steps to comply with the By-law by May 13, 2013.,","",.. I r x. As of May 13, 2013, the Airpark had not yet complied with the Order to Comply. As a result, on May 13 the City issued a Notice of Violation to Airpark, notifying Airpark that it was in breach of the Order to Comply and in violation of the City's Site Alteration By-law. y. In June 2013, the City retained an independent qualified professional environmental engineering firm to analyze the soil test reports and

53 8 43 i'. report back to City staff. Properties abutting the Airport property have suffered drainage impacts from the imposition of significant grade and slope changes at the property line that have been create by the deposit of fill. z. On July 11, 2013, Terrapex Environmental Ltd. ('Terrapex") provided its report on its review of the Airpark soil test reports to City staff. The findings and conclusions of the Terrapex Report were deeply concerning to City staff and City Council. The Terrapex Report identified that a review of the soil test reports provided by Airpark for the Airport property indicated that only 41 % of the fill material received at the Airport property met the applicable Table 1 standard under Ontario Regulation 153/04 of the Environmental Protection Act. Additionally, the Terrapex Report concluded that the sampling frequency of fill contained within the soil reports provided by Airpark was inadequate- 323 samples compared to approximately 1700 samples that would be required by Ontario Regulation 153/04 for the amount offill thqt is estimated to have been placed at the Airport. aa. Fifty-nine per cent (59%) of the fill deposited at the Airpark since 2011 appears to be contaminated according to Table 1 standards. This is deeply conceming to the City given Airpark's earlier assurances about the quality of the fill, and particularly given the fact that the fill has been placed in an area where the surrounding properties rely upon groundwater for potable drinking water. bb. The City is concerned that the non-compliant fill that has been deposited on the Airport property has resulted or may result in.contamination of groundwater by heavy metals, hydrocarbons and electrolytes which have flowed, or are likely to flow, off the Airport property, groundwater that is relied upon by neighbouring residents for

54 ,-.', ,', potable drinking water through wells and thus will cause adverse effects off site. f'! I ~ r, cc. Given the significantly concerning nature of the situation, the City demanded Airpark and its primary hauler and receiver of fill on the Airport site, King Paving, to voluntarily cease the importation of additional fill until further investigation is completed and the matter is resolved. dd. King Paving advised the City that it would suspend hauling offill to the Airport property for the time being, but advised that other haulers continued to deliver fill to the Airport property. ee. Airpark refused to cease importation of fill to the Airport property and, in response, commenced an Application against the City to, among other things, prohibit the City from enforcing its Site Alteration By-law on Airpark. ff. The City responded with a Toronto action seeking an injunction to stop the importation of fill to the Airport site in order to prevent further exacerbation of the non-compliant situation and to prevent further contamination until the Ministry of Environment, Transport Canada and City staff have completed their investigations and the situation has been remedied appropriately. gg. The parties have settled the City's action and motion for an injunction and agreed that fill deliveries will cease pending the outcome of the Application No. 3992/13 and this Application. r-. I hh. Airports are indeed under federal jurisdiction because of Parliament's power over aeronautics but by-laws may still apply to activities at airports unless they significantly or seriously intrude on the federal aeronautics power.

55 r' I,-, :! ' r ii. The inte~urisdictional immunity claimed by Airpark does not apply unless a provincial law such as the By-Law, significantly or selious/y intrudes on federal powers. Federal powers are not properly immune from valid provincial laws unless those laws impair the federal power-,' not merely affect it, 'bufimpair it. The City's By Law applies to the Airport so long as it does not impair some vital part of its aeronautical operation. r r I r,1 I jj. There is no operational conflict between the provisi0ns of the By-law, and the relevant provisions of the Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices- TP312E (r!vised 03/2005) published by Transport Canada under Part 1/1 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations SOR/ and therefore there is no significant or serious intrusion upon the federal aeronautics power that would make the By-law inapplicable to Airpark's fill operation. kk. The By-Law provides that no person shall place or dump fill on or alter the grade of any lands in the City without having first obtained a site Alteration Permit (s. 2.1). It requires a person applying for a Permit to certify that the fill contains no contaminants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act (s. 2.4(a)). An applicant must submit a Control Plan as part of its Application for a Permit; this must contain, inter alia, a map showing the location of the.site, the site boundaries and number of hectares, the current and pro~osed use of the site, the location of lakes, streams, wetlands, channels, ditches, other water courses and other bodies of water on the site, the location of the predominant soil types, the existing site topography at a contour interval not to exceed 0.5 metres, the proposed final elevations of the site, the location and dimensions oftemporary soil or dirt stockpiles, and provisions maintaining site control measures during construction (s.2.5). The Control Plan must be certified by an Ontario professional engineer (s. 2.6). I' [,

56 11 46 II. The City may require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the City to provide security for its obligations under the By-law and Permit and such other requirements as the Director considers necessary to ensure that the work will be up to standard, which ag-reement may be registered on title (s. 2.8). The City_also has the authority to require the random testing of any fill before it is placed on the site or removed from it; and the testing must be done by a qualified consultant retained by the City with Applicant bearing the costs. (s ). The Director may also impose terms and conditions and design guidelines when he issues a permit (s. 2.10)_ The By-law contains other detailed provisions within the framework of the By-law but they do not extend its scope beyond what has been just described. mm. While the by-law would affect Airpark's fill operation and require Airpark to meet the City's requirements, there is no operational conflict between its provisions and the relevant provisions of the Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices - TP312E (revised 03/2005) and no significant or substantial intrusion on Airpark's aeronautical activities. -, nn. These Transport Canada standards cover the orientation, elevation and the length and width of runways and the strength of pavements. However, section 2.1 of the Standards says that these are merely information requirements; the constructorlowner is to decide on these features and record them in the Aerodrome Operation Manual where specified and report them to the regional Aeronautical Information Service_ There are no prescriptive standards for these features. 00. The other federal standards for Airports do not conflict in any way with the require ttients for and of a Control Plan under the By-law or any other provision of the By -Law. They deal with the physical dimensions

57 12 47,~'. ~' " of Airport facilities that may go on top of whatever fill has been used for construction but have nothing to say about the fill itself. ~, i ' pp. Notl:!ing in the City's By-Law seeks to regulate the design, construction or operation of airports, airport buildings, hangars runways or control tower or substantially impairs the federal aeronautics power. -' qq. Airpark argues that the Director's power under section 2.10 of the Bylaw to impose telms and con.ditions and design fjuidelines upon the issuance of any Permit would allow the Director to redesign the airport and thus The City's powers under 2: 10 are there only to protect the public with respect to the matters covered by the By-Law. If the City were to attempt to impose terms and conditions and design guidelines of the type Airpark speculates about, they could be attacked as being ultra vires the By-law before any constitutional issue arose. rr. Since the City has tried to enforce the By-Law by sending City officials to the site, requesting information, litigation and persuading King Paving to stop delivering fill under threat of litigation, not one aeronautical function of the Airport has been affected. Not one plane has failed to take off or land. No one person has been prevented from using the Airport. That would be equally true if Airpark is required to comply with the By-Law. ss. If Airpark is required to comply with the City's By-law, it would in no way significantly or seriously intrude on the federal aeronautics power. tt. Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law No uu. Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part 'XV. 1 of the Environmental Protection Act, Table 1 under O. Reg 153/04.

58 ~ w. O. Reg 153/04 Records of Site Condition-Part XV. 1 of the Act, s.55.! r-, WW. Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices- TP312E (revised 03/2005). yy. Rules 14.05(3)(d) and (g) and 38.03(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. xx. The pleadings and proceedings herein. -. Date: July 30,2013 GARDINER ROBERTS LLP Lawyers 40 King Street West, Suite 3100 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y2 Ian A. Blue (LSUC 14641J) Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Applicant ;

59 ) ) -) 1 ) ) --I J j -1 "'.'\ ~ C~).~..}.1 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant - and- BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respon,nt Court File No. 4z-Z-C] / (..3 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE PROCEEDING COMMENCED AT MILTON NOTICE OF APPLICATION GARDINER ROBERTS LLP Lawyers 40 King Street West Suite 3100, Scotia Plaza Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y2 Ian Blue, Q.C. LSUC No J Tel: Fax: Lawyers for the Applicant T0130NTO: (101040), ~

60 ADMINISTRATION_1D Tab 7

61 50 Court File No ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE r BETWEEN:,, BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. - and- Applicant THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION The Applicant intends to question the constitutional applicability of the City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ) in the attempted regulation of the applicants construction of runway, taxiway, apron, hanger and terminal facilities at Burlington Executive Airport, registered aerodrome CZBA. The question is to be argued on Wednesday, August 28, 2013, at 10:00 am, at 491 Steeles Ave E. Milton ON. The following are the material facts giving rise to the constitutional question: 1. The applicant owns and operates the Burlington Executive Airport which occupies land between Bell School Line and Appleby Line within the boundaries of the City of Burlington; -, 2. The Burlington Executive Airport was established in It is a registered aerodrome under Part III, Section of the Canadian Aviation Regulations which are made under the authority granted the Minister of Transport under the Aeronautics Act. The Burlington Executive Airport has received the designation "CZBA" from Transport Canada and is listed with that designation in the Canadian Flight Supplement published by Transport Canada.

62 -2-51 r I 3. The applicant is expanding the facilities of the Burlington Executive Airport by improving and adding to its runways, taxiways, aprons, hangers and terminal facilities. This activity has been reported to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the r requirements of section (3) of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. 4. These improvements involve the use of fill to bring the elevation of the western Airport lands to substantially the same grade as the existing main runway so as to allow safe flight operations at the Burlington Executive Airport. The fill work has been ongoing since 2008, and the respondent's staff have been aware of this work since at r I ~, I. least September The fill work is now over 90% complete. The applicant has in fact built a portion of a newly paved runway 09/27 (replacing an older grass strip), and associated taxiway, a hangar, apron and a separate taxiway servicing same on various portions of the filled lands during this period. 5. The respondent previously accepted that any activities related to aeronautics, including any expansion of existing airparks or airports are subject to Federal regulation under TranspOli Canada, and are not required to comply with local or provincial plans, policies, by-laws or regulations. More pmiicularly, the respondent previously accepted that the grading mld filling work at the Airport was for aeronautical purposes, fell under Federal Jurisdiction and that municipal by-laws did not apply. 6. On or about May 3, 2013 the respondent purported to issue an order to comply that directed the applicant to stop site alterations immediately and apply for a Site -. Alteration Permit. 7. Since that date the respondent has taken and threatens to take steps that would interfere with the applicant's lawful operation of the Burlington Executive Airport. The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question: 8. The alleged acts referred to in the purported order to comply dated May 3, 2013 Ii! I issued by the respondent relate solely to the construction of an aerodrome.

63 Aeronautics, including the location and construction of ground facilities for air navigation, are within the exclusive legislative authority of the Federal government. 10. The City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site Alteration By-law (By-law ), which is stated to be the basis upon which the order to comply was issued by the respondent, is constitutionally inapplicable to the construction for improving an aerodrome on the applicant's property. To the extent the respondent attempts to apply the said By-law to the construction of aeronautical facilities, it is acting beyond its jurisdiction and intruding upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government over aeronautics and the regulation thereof by the Federal Government pursuant to the Aeronautics Act, R.S., 1985, c. A-2 and the regulations thereunder. r ~, 11. Such further and other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may permit. July 25,2013 MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada Peter EJ. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) /Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) IFax: (416) BrentMcPherson LS#: 37214K Tel: (416) / Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: (416) /Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Applicant r TO: The Attorney General of Ontario Constitutional Law Branch 4th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2Kl fax: (416)

64 -4-53 r The Attorney General of Canada Suite 3400, Exchange Tower First Canadian Place Box 36 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 fax: (416) AND TO: The Corporation of the City of Burlington 426 Brant Street Burlington ON L7R 3Z6, Canada legal_ ~ I -,

65 -'I f ---;} ~~ --=~", --I 7. -J -T} -) -] i,--==-=--~: ~l 1 ~) :~} ~-.-1, '~J BURLINGTON AIRPARK. INC. d THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF Applicant an BURLINGTON Respondent Court File No: 3992/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Proceeding commenced at Milton NOTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION MCMILLAN LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto ON M5J 2T3, Canada PeterE.J. Wells LS#: 18002S Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Glenn Grenier LS#: 32272T Tel: (416) IFax: (416) Brent McPherson LS#: 37214K Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Joanna Vatavu LS#: 60647W Tel: (416) Fax: (416) Lawyers for the Applicant U1.j::>.

66 ADM1NISTRATJON_ Tab 8

67 -, VIOTDRY VERBATIM 55 Court File No. 3992/13 ONTJl...RIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE TA/fm BET WEE N: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent -'. Court File No. 4229/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BET WEE N: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON -, - and - BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant Respondent ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STR.EET, suite 900, TDRCJNTCl, ONTARIO, MSK 1 HS (416) 36" lnfo@vio:toryygrbatim.oom

68 VICTORY VERBATIM 56 This is the Cross-Examination of JEFF STEVENSON on his affidavits sworn the 22nd of July, 2013, and the 1st of August, 2013, herein, taken at the offices of VICTORY VERBATIM REPORTING SERVICES, Suite 900, Ernst & Young Tower, 222 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, on the 1st day of August, APPEARANCES: PETER WELLS KE-JIA,CHONG (summer student) -- for Burlington Airpark Inc. IAN A. BLUE, Q.C. LINDA ROBINSON (law clerk) -- for The Corporation of the City of Burlington ~RNST & young TOWER, 222 SAY STREET, SUtTE 900 J TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H6. (416) 3S'O M 6117 INFD@V10:TDRYVERBAT1M.CDM

69 VICTORY VERBATIM 57,- I. J. Stevenson - 10,-! 1 2 I' 3 I 4 A. Actually, the 22nd. It was the Saturday that it was provided. 32. Q. Okay. Do you have a copy of that draft? r A. Not with me, no. 33. Q. And you went over that draft with members of the City? A. Yes.,- 9,. lo I 11 l2 l3 34. Q. And you made changes? A. Minor. 35. Q. Okay. Now, were you under any time pressure to get this job done? A. No. _ l4 l5 16 l7 l8 36. Q. Okay. And you prepared the table that is attached to your report? A. Yes, I did. 37. Q. Okay. Did you do a spel1check on it? _ A. I do not recall that I did. 38. Q. I don't think you did. For instance, if you look at line 27, the column, "Concentration... Table 1 SCS", you'll see that you 23 have misspelled "samples". There are a couple of others. A. Yes, I see that. ERNST &. YOUNG TDWER, 222 BAY STR.EET, SUITE 9Qa~ TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 KG (416) 35"0-61 1? INFO@VICTORYVERBATIM.GDM

70 ~, VICTORY VERBATIM 58 J. Stevenson - 11 r Q. Okay, now, the other question I have 2 is, why are there two lines 52? 3 A. That must be a typo when I was going 4 through the report... or going through preparing the 5 table Q. Okay, so, there are actually 55 7 lines in this report? a A. Yes Q. Okay. Did you check your count of the number of samples before you ~tarted percentages? doing A. I went through it twice, yes. Q. Okay. Because I came up with a 14 different number. Just to help, I put them into 15 Excel, and maybe we can go through the exercise of looking to make sure that I've got it right. line 1 there were seven samples. So, on 1a A. That's correct Q. Line 2, there is nothing? 20 A. Correct Q. Line 3 there are two? 22 A. Correct Q. Line 4 there are two? 24.A. Yes Q. Line 5 there are none? ERNST &. ydun6 TOWER J 222 SAY STREET, SUITE 900,. TOReNi'O, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6. (415) 8.6" INFO@VICTQRYVERBATlM.CClM

71 E.RNST &. YOUNG TDWER, 2Z2 BAY STREET, SUiTE 900, TORONTD, ClNTARIO J MSK 1 He. (4t 6.) 3SEl~6 117 INFO@VIGTORYVERBATIM.COM

72 VICTORY VERBATIM 60 J. Stevenson A. Correct. r L1 2 3 S 6 7 S 9 LO L2 L3 L4 LS L6 L7 LS S 59. Q. Line 18, three? A. Yes. 60. Q. Line 19, four? A. M'hmrn. 61. Q. Line 20, one? A. Correct. 62. Q. Line 21, nine? A. Yes. 63. Q. Line 22, four? A. M'hmrn. 64. Q. Line 23, one? A. Yes. 65. Q. Line 24, we have got four? A. Yes. 66. Q. Line 25, we have got eight? A. M'hmrn. 67. Q. Line 26, we have got twelve? A. Yes. 68. Q. Line 27, there are four? A. Yes. 69. Q. Line 28, there are three? A. Yes. 70. Q. Line 29, there are four? A. Yes. ERNST &. YOUNG TDWER~ 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900,. TORONTO, ONTARiO, M5K 1 H5 (4'16) 3.5 Q~51 17 INFO@VIGTORYVERBATIM.OOM

73 VICTORY VERBATIM 61 J. Stevenson lo II Q. Line 30, there is one? A. Yes. 72. Q. Line 31, there are three? A. Yes. 73. Q. Line 32, we have got a number of different groups. A. Yes. 74. Q. So, we have got three, then we have 14? A. M'hmm. 75. Q. Then we have 16? A. M'hmm. 76. Q. Then we have three? A. Yes Q. Then we have 13? A. Correct. 78. Q. And those total 49. On the spreadsheet, you can see that I totalled it across. A. Yes. 79. Q. Okay. So, for line 32, there were multiple different analyses looked at, and we have put out the number of samples. So, -at any rate, 33, we have got nine? A. Yes. 80. Q. 34, we have got four? E.RNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 22.2 BAY STR.EET, SUlTE: 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 HS (415) 36"0-511 '7 INFa@V"l[~TORYVERBAT[M~OOM

74 v 62 J. stevenson - 15 r 1 2 A. M'hmrn. 81. Q. 35, we have got six? r, [ A. M'hmrn. 82. Q. 36, we have seven? A. M'hmrn. 83. Q. 37, we have got three? A. Yes. 84. Q. 38, we have 19? A. M'hmrn. 85. Q. 39, we have two? A. M'hmrn. 86. Q. 40, we have five? A. M' hmrn. 87. Q. 41, we have three. 42, we have one?. 15 A. M'hmrn. _ _ 21 ; ' Q. 43, we have got two? A. M'hmrn. 89. Q. 44, we have two? A. M' hmrn. 90. Q. 45, we have five? A. M'hmrn. 91. Q. 46, we have nine? A. Yes. 92. Q. 47, we have three? A. M'hmrn. ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900 r TOR-ONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 He (41 6) SS Q~61 17 INFO@VIOTLlRYVERBATIM.ODM

75 r v V I~ I Wf"'C.T v.t:..hu::3atim 63 J. Stevenson - 16 ~ 1 2 3, a Q. 48, we have three? A. Correct. 94. Q. 49, we have forty? A. M'hmm. 95. Q. 50, we have five? A. Correct. 96. Q. 51, we have six? A. M'hmm. 97. Q. The first 52, we have 13?. 0 A. Correct Q. The second 52, we have five? A. M'hmm. L3 L, L5 - L6 L7! La, L9 La., Q. 53, we have got ten. And for 54, we have eight? A. Yes Q. And there are, in fact, 333 referred to in the table, not the 323 you used in your calculation. A. Okay Q. Do you accept that? A Yes. MR. BLUE: Well, don't accept it until you check the arithmetic. THE DEPONENT: Okay. I actually get 334 just from adding them up. ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BA.Y STR.EET, SUITE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H5 (416) INF"Q@VID.TDRYVERBAT!M~OOM

76 ADMINISTRATION_ Tab 9

77 VICTORY VERBATIM Court File No. 3992/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE TA/fm BET WEE N: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant r - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent Court File No. 4229/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BET WEE N: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant - and - BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent ERNST &. YaUNI:5 TOWE:R BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 He (416) '17 lnfo@viotclryye.rbatim.odm

78 VICTORY VERBATIM 65 This is the Cross-Examination of JEFF STEVENSON on his affidavits sworn the 22nd of July, 2013, and the 1st of August, 2013, herein, taken at the offices of VICTORY VERBATIM REPORTING SERVICES, suite 900, Ernst & Young Tower, 222 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, on the 1st day of August, APPEARANCES: PETER WELLS KE-JIA,CHONG (summer student) IAN A. BLUE, Q.C. LINDA ROBINSON (law clerk) -- for Burlington Airpark Inc. -- for The Corporation of the City of Burlington ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 SAY STREET, SU(TE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 HS. (416) 360~6117 INFO@VIG1:"QRYVERBATIM.COM

79 VICTORY VERBATIM 66 J. Stevenson MR. WELLS: I'll have to speak to 2 Microsoft. At any rate, not BY MR. WELLS: Q. Okay. Now, have you ever been to the airport site? A. I have not Q. What do know of what is there? A. From being a resident of the area, I LO L1 l2 L3 l4 know that there is a small airport up there. seen it from Appleby Line, driving by Q. Hangars? A. Yes Q. Okay. Fuel dispensing area? I have l5 ~ l6 l7 L9 L9 20 I' i I _ 25 A. Could you rephrase the question? 107. Q. Do they have an area where you can refuel your aircraft? A. It's my understanding from reading the Pinch in Phase II and phase I reports, that they have an underground storage tank that, I assume, is for that purpose Q. Okay. Do you know anything about a flight school? A. Only from what I read in the Phase I report by Pinchin. ERNST &:. YOUNG: TOWER r 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO! ONTARIO, MSK 1 Ha (415) INF'O@VICTORYVERBATIM.DDM.

80 VIL,; l LJR.Y VERBATIM 67 J. stevenson - 18 r> ~ Q. And aircraft maintenance shop? A. I don't recall about that. 1l0. Q. Okay. Now, I just want to get something clear. You talk in your report and your affidavit about Ontario Regulation 153/ ~ 8 9 A. Correct. lli. Q. And you talk about table 1 and table 2? A. Correct I Q. In fact, and this misled me for a little while, table 1 and table 2 are not in the regulation itself, correct? A. That's correct Q. They are in a separate document :,~I ' ts " ~ l6. l7 ~ La 19,I! 20 called "Soil, Groundwater, and Sediment Standards" for use under part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act? A. That is correct Q. And the current one was published in April of 2011? A. I believe so r r 115. Q. I wonder if you could look at that, and let me know whether that is a copy? A. That is Q. Okay. ERNsT &: YOUNG TOWER" 222 BAY STREET, SUiTE: 900~ TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 KG (416) 36Q-51 1? INFO@V![}TOR"YVERBATlM.OOM

81 v VIL: lory VERBATIM 68 J. Stevenson MR. WELLS: Let's mark that as Exhibit 3. EXHIBTT NO.3: Document entitled "Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act MR. BLUE: Thank you. BY MR. WELLS: 118. Q. When you were compiling the information in this table, which type of land use did you use when you were assessing whether it met table 1 or table 2 criteria? A. I was using the standards in the table l... sorry, the residential, parkland, institutional land use. Not the agriculture one Q. So, referring to page 1 of Exhibit 3, there is a column headed "Contaminant", and then there is a column that says "Agricultural or Other Property Use", and then there is one that says, "Residential, Parkland, Institutional", on and on it goes. A. M'hmm. ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET 1 SUITE: 9QD, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H5 (416) INFO@VIGTORYVERBATIM.ODM

82 VICTORY VERBATIM 69 J. stevenson ', Q. So, you were using the third column from the left? A. Yes Q. Okay. And we look at table 2, which -~ lo II l column were you using? A. The same one, residential, parkland, institutional Q. Okay. Why not industrial or commercial? A. Because I believe an airport would be an institutional land use, not an industrial or a commercial land use Q. Do you have your copy of 153/04? A. I do Q. Okay. Can you look under the -: 16 17, 18 19, 20..., ~, definition for industrial use, item number 4? A. M'hmm Q. Wouldn't, "... The airport be used for the transportation of goods or people by railway or by airplane... " A. That it would Q. And how about number II? "... Used for the storage, maintenance, fueling, or repair of equipment, vehicles, ERNST &. YOUNG TtlWER J 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE SaD, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H5 WWW~VICTORYVE.RBATIM.DOM {41513S-0~6117 INFO@VICTDRYVERBAT1M.DOM

83 r-"' I I v VILiIUh1Y VERBATIM 70,- I I J. Stevensori - 21 ~, 1 I! 2! 3 ~ or material used to maintain transportation systems... " A. Yes, that as well Q. So, it should have been the fourth column; do you agree? A. Yes, I do, but with a clarification Q. Yes? A. Several of the standards in the ~ i I,- "' , types of property land uses are the same numbers as in the community property use Q. Well, we will come... A. So, it mayor may not make Q. Make a difference. A.... a difference Q. Well, we will come to that. Now, if you can turn up the material from your line number 7? A. The actual report? i32. Q. Yes. A. This may take a while Q. Well... MR. BLUE: That's okay. We have a ~ 23 while BY MR. WELLS: E:RNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STR.EET, SUlTE: 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 HG (416) INFO@VID:TDR.YVERBATIM.CDM

84 v.. _1'- L...IJ'-'\.I IIVI 71 J. Stevenson , 1 2, a 9 LO ""' Ll ~ L2 L3 l4. L5 mark if it was tested against 153/04, criteria. That's the fourth column from the left. A. But the last column indicates analysis for VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons as well Q. Right. A. So, there were nine samples that were analyzed Q. No, I know there were nine samples, but only six were analyzed against EC and SAR. A. Okay Q. Can you find the report for line 22? A. Okay, I have it here Q. And if you turn into the report, it's the one that has the five from the fax machine in the upper right-hand corner? Are we dealing with _ L6 the same thing? This is an AGAT certificate of. L7 La i ' ~ 25 '. analysis, just to make sure we are looking at the same thing. It looks the same. And we have got data for four different test pits. It's a little hard to read. A. Correct Q. Let's see if I have got the EC numbers correct: 0.776? A. It's hard to say. It looks like it could be. ERNST &. YOUNG TDWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTAR.IO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 36" INFO@VIOTORYVERBATIM.COM

85 v... _. _0"-' """' _1 Ilvi 72 J. Stevenson - 38 i 1, ra 9, Q. Or 0.770? 0.77-something or other, anyway? A. Correct. 23B. Q. Okay ? If it will help, I've... A. It could be Q.... brought a magnifying glass. A. Yes, that's correct Q. Okay. 0.51B? A. Yes Q. And the last one, 0.650? L2 L3 L4 L5 ~ L6 L7 La I' 23 I ,. I A. L"ooks like it Q. Okay. Now, in line 22 of your report under the table 1 criteria, you say all of them fail EC. A. That's correct Q. And that would be true, only if you used the agricultural use column from table I, correct? Where the standard is 0.47? A. Yes, that would be true Q. Right. So, -the and 0.51B, in fact, pass table 1 on the residential, parkland, et cetera use, correct? A. Correct Q. Can you find the report for your I::RNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 SAY. STREET, SUiTE 900, Ta~ONTQ, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 3SU-51 t 7 INFO@VIDTClR'(VERBATlM.OOM

86 v - _... I I IV. 73 ~, I I I J. Stevenson - 39 ~ 1 line 26? 2 3 A. Okay, I believe I have it here Q. Okay. I just want to make sure I was going to direct you to the right place. turn to the Maxxam report, page 3 of 17? A. Okay. If you I, ~ lo II l2 l Q. Now, in your line 26, you say one of these samples fails for electrical conductivity, correct? A. That's what it says, yes Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, is not the highest reading for EC in this table the result for TP SA2, with a reading of 0.49? 14,"'"' : ~ ~ A. That's correct Q. Okay. And that is a fail under table 1, only if you use the agricultural column, correct? A. Yes Q. It's less than the 0.57 for the other uses? A. Correct Q. Okay. And in line 26 of your report, under the table 1 column, you also say that one fails for SAR? '""' 25 A.' That's correct. ER.NST &. YQUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE: 90G J TORONTO, ONTAR.IO, MSK 1 He (415) INF'O@VIOTDRYVERBATIM.ODM

87 v '" '--... L...I -. I I IVI 74 J. Stevenson - 40,- 1 Ii I, Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, but is not the highest sodium absorption ratio recorded on page 3 of 17, the reading of 1.7 for test pit 8, S3? A reading of 1.7? A. That's correct. Q. And that is a pass under table 1 for residential, parkland use, correct? A. Yes, it is. Q. So, you have used agricultural again?. 1 A. It looks that way, yes. l2 l3 l4 l Q. I'm going to suggest to you that you used it throughout. A. That may be. Q. Okay. ~ l6 A. It was my... l Q. At the same... A. Sorry. Q. Sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. A. It was my recollection that I used the other one, but perhaps not Q. Okay. MR. BLUE: Should we take a break? MR. WELLS: Sure. ERNST &. YOUNG. TEJWER J 222 BAY STREET, SUIIE gdof TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 He {41 sj 300~61 17 INFO@VIGTDRYVER,BATIM_ODM

88 ADMINISTRATION_ Tab 10

89 VICTORY VERBATIM 75 Court File No. 3992/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE TA/fm BET WEE N: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent Court File No. 4229/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BET WEE N: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant - and - BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent ERNST & YClUNS TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE: 900, TCRDNTO, o.ntario, M5K t H6 (416) 36"0-51 1'7 INFO@VICTORYyE;RBATIM.OOM

90 VIOTORY VERBATIM 76 (.:2 I. This is the Cross-Examination of JEFF STEVENSON on his affidavits sworn the 22nd of July, 2013, and the 1st of August, 2013, herein, taken at the offices of VICTORY VERBATIM REPORTING SERVICES, Suite 900, Ernst & Young Tower, 222 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, on the 1st day of August, APPEARANCES: PETER WELLS KE-JIA,CHONG (summer student) -- for Burlington Airpark Inc. IAN A. BLUE, Q.C. LINDA ROBINSON (law clerk) -- for The Corporation of the City of Burlington ERNST & YaUNG TClWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TClRCNTC, ONTARIO., M5K 1 H5. (416) 360 M B 1 17 INFO@VIGTDRYVERSATIM.COM

91 VICTORY VERBATIM 77 J. Stevenson - 25 r,! 1 "and/or EC." 2 I" 3 r' 4 :1 5 r 6, 1- B r 10 9 ~- 11 I 12 i- n I r c-, Q. Yes, but that's not what it says. And all of the others, you separate them out if the numbers are different. Okay. Can you pullout the report for your line 14? To help you, it's a little distinctive. There is a big "Lancorp" on the front. A. Okay 154. Q. Just as a check, tell me how many pages there are in that document? A. There are six pages in total Q. So, if you turn into the fourth page, we have a report from ENTECH? A. Correct Q. And there are four samples analyzed there, 82885, 82886, 82887, and 82888, A. M'hmm Q. And in your line 14, you report that f-, r:,,-..:- 1B there were four samples? A. Correct Q. Okay. Turn to the next page? MR. BLUE: Of? 159. MR. WELLS: Of the document that the witness is looking at, that they materially looked at to prepare line 14. -~ ERNST &. YOUNG TOWERs 222 BAY STR.EET, SUITE: 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H5. WWW,VIO,TORYVERBATlMkqOM t4'ls} 3&0-51 t 7 INFO@VICTORYVERSATIM.OOM

92 VICTORY VERBATIM 78 I J. Stevenson -,26 (, 1 f 2 ~ I I, 3 BY MR. WELLS: 160. Q. And this is the second page, and it reports results for samples 82889, 82890, 82891, r~ 5 correct? A. That's correct. r- I c", I ~ L2 L3 L' L Q. Three additional samples? A. Yes Q. If you turn to the next page, the last page of the document, there is a report for one last sample, 82892? A. That's correct Q. Okay. So, flip back to the first page we were looking at, the samples that start Okay, now, the first thing we have to deal with is this report uses an older set' of units,,~ L6 correct? L7 A. That's correct. ~ Q. Micromolars per centimetre. So, we ~ have to divide by 1,000 to get into mil1isiemens, correct? """'!, 23 A. That's correct Q. Okay. So, the readings are 0.898, 0.215, 0.202, and 0.111, correct? ;.::::.. 2' 25 A. Say that again, please? 166. Q. o. 898, O. 215, O. 2 02, and O. 111? 'I- I ~, ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H5 (41 s) 36-0"5117 INFO@VIOTORYVERBATIM_COM

93 v V I~ I L..Jr"I:.l VI::..t-<.t:::iA-I-IM 79 J. Stevenson - 27 ", 1 A. M' hrmn Q. And then line 14 you say one of I 3 these fails for electrical conductivity, correct? 4 5 And that is sample 82885? A. That's right. -~ Q. Okay. But if we look at 82889, , and 82891, we have 0.091, O.ISO, and 0.092, correct? --, LO L1 L2 L3 L4. l5 l6 A. That's correct Q. And they are all passes? A. That's correct Q. And if we turn to the last one, sample 82892, it's 0.245? A. Correct. 17l. Q. And that's a pass? A. Yes. 17 l Q. SO, you missed four passes? A. That's correct. It would appear 19 that I only reviewed the first page of the data Q. Okay. Can you find the report for line 16? A. I believe this is it. ~:::::, Q. Okay. Seven pages in we have a page 24 I' 25 from Maxxam. A. M'hmm. ERNST &:. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE goof TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (415) as-orall? INFO@VICTORYVER,BATlM.DDM

94 " v '-1 VJ;:..,~.:::::::::II~II[VJ. 80 J. Stevenson position of AirPark that the soil standards 2 are not appropriate? MR. WELLS: Yes. 4 MR. BLUE: Okay, thank you., 5, 6 BY MR. WELLS:,., Q. Can you pull up the report for your line 21? A. Okay, I have it here Q. Okay. Now, this document has two.1 different sets of data, am I correct? There is a!~,.2 ~ r 15 section at pages 11, 12, and 13 of the Coffey Geotechnics report, that discusses one group. A. That's correct Q. Okay. And so in your line 21, you 16 break them down. You talk about four of nine. 17 samples passing table 1, and then you talk about --, 18 zero of four samples. So, you have broken them into their two different groups? A. Right Q. Okay. Now, if we can deal with the :22 nine, can you give me... sorry. I'm lost in my own -'23 I 24 notes. Where did you get the data for the sodium absorption ratio? ~'... ~, 25 I A. For the one set, it's right there. I:!RNST &:. YOUNG TOWER,. 222 SAY STREET! SUITE 9DCl J TORONTO, ONTARIO l MSK 1 He (415) 35-Q 51 1 '7 INFO@VICTaRYVE:RBAT'(M~QDM

95 v ". I~' '-I... I v ~ro;.of->\.1 IIVI 81 J. Stevenson Q. Right. That's the group of four? A. Correct. ~ Q. But the other one, the putative 4 nine? 5-6! r 7 a 9 I A. The nine samples are discussed in page 11 of the actual text of the report. Q. Yes. A. Nine samples were randomly selected. Q. Right. A. Okay, the discussion of the nine is 11 ~ I I I 14 in here. MR. BLUE: When you say "in here", what page are you referring to? THE DEPONENT: Page r,a MR. WELLS: Page 12, below the table. THE DEPONENT: Yes. They indicate three samples of the nine meeting table 1 and 2 standards. And then a mixture of samples failing EC for table 1 or table 2. That's \ the discussion of the nine there MR. WELLS: Right. BY MR. WELLS: 231. Q. In fact, only six were tested,. correct? If you look at the table, there is a tick ERNST &.. YDUNGl TOWER,. 222 SAY STREET, SUlTE: 90Cl, "TORONTO, ONTARIO) MSK 1 H5 (415) 35'0"<51 17 INPO@VID:TDRyVERBATlM.ODM

96 v.. ~ l," '-' ~ I I IVI 82 J. stevenson - 37 I 1 mark if it was tested against 153/04, criteria. 2 That's the fourth column from the left. 3 A. But the last column indicates 4 analysis for VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons as well. r~ Q. Right. ~ 6 A. So, there were nine samples that I I, 7 were analyzed. B 233. Q. No, I know there were nine samples, 9 but only six were analyzed against EC and SAR. I. to A. Okay. ~,! tl 234. Q. Can you find the report for line 22? t2 A. Okay, I have it here. t Q. And if you turn into the report, I~ I t4. t6 t7, Ita \ t9,-. [20 21,. I I.. 22 r it's the one that has the five from the fax machine in the upper right-hand corner? Are we dealing with the same thing? This is an AGAT certificate of analysis, just to make sure we are looking at the same thing. It looks the same. And we have got data for four different test pits. It's a little hard to read. A. Correct. Q. Let's see if I have got the EC numbers correct: 0.776? I 24 A. It's hard to say. It looks like it r 25 could be. E:RNST' &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 HG (1'. (416) 36:0-:5 t 1 7 INF'O@VICTDRYVERBATIM.COM il,

97 ADMINISTRATION_l Tab 11

98 61 VICTORY VERBATIM 83 Court File No. 3992/13 ONTJl..RIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE TA/fm BET WEE N: BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Applicant - and - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Respondent Court File No. 4229/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BET WEE N: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON Applicant - and - BURLINGTON AIRPARK INC. Respondent ERNST &. YOUNG T'CWe::R~ 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900, TClRDNTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 He. R (416) 3S'O 17 INFO@VICTORYVE;RBATIM.DDM

99 VICTORY VERBATIM 84 This is the Cross-Examination of JEFF STEVENSON on his affidavits sworn the 22nd of July, 2013, and the 1st of August, 2013, herein, taken at the offices of VICTORY VERBATIM REPORTING SERVICES, Suite 900, Ernst & Young Tower, 222 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, on the 1st day of August, APPEARANCES: PETER WELLS KE-JIA.CHONG (sununer student) -- for Burlington Airpark Inc. IAN A. BLUE, Q.C. LINDA ROBINSON (law clerk) -- for The Corporation of the City of Burling ton ERNST & young TOWER, 2Z2 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900 J TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 He WWW,VICTORYVERBATlM.ClOM (416) 36"Cl R INFD@VICTORYVER8ATIM.OOM

100 ~ v VI... I WI-{Y VERBATIM 85 J. stevenson ~, LO L1 L2 L3 l A. Actually, the 22nd. It was the saturday that it was provided. 32. Q. Okay. Do you have a copy of that draft? A. Not with me, no. 33. Q. And you went over that draft with members of the City? A. Yes. 34. Q. And you made changes? A. Minor. 35. Q. Okay. Now, were you under any time pressure to get this job done? A. No. 36. Q. Okay. And you prepared the table that is attached to your report? A. Yes, I did. 37. Q. Okay. Did you do a spell check on it? A. I do not recall that I did. 38. Q. I don't think you did. For instance, if you look at line 27, the column, "Concentration... Table 1 SCS", you'll see that you 1 I 23 have misspelled "samples". There are a couple of 2. others. 25 A. Yes, I see that. E:RNST &. YQUNS TClWER, 22-2 BAY STREET, SUITE 9QCI~ TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 35 Q-6117 INFO@VICTDRYVER,BATIM.DOM

101 VICTORY VERBATIM 86 J. Stevenson Q. Okay, now, the other question I have is, why are there two lines 52? A. That must be a typo when I was going through the report... or going through preparing the table. Q. Okay, so, there are actually 55 lines in this report? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you check your count of LO the number of samples before you ~tarted doing r 11 I L2 L3 42. percentages? A. I went through it twice, yes. Q. Okay. Because I came up with a L4 different number. Just to help, I put them into l5 c Excel, and maybe we can go through the exercise of looking to make sure that I've got it right. So, on line 1 there were seven samples. 18 A. That's correct Q. Line 2, there is nothing? 20 A. Correct Q. Line 3 there are two? 22 A. Correct Q. Line 4 there are two? 24. A. Yes Q. Line 5 there are none? ERNST &. YOUNG TCJWE.R, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900, TDR.ONTO, ONTARIO, MS.K 1 H6. (4'16) 36Q~5117 INF"O@VICTORYVERBATlM.OOM

102 V VICTORY VERBATIM 87 J. Stevenson a A. Yes. 47. Q. Line 6 there are two? A. Correct. 48. Q. Line 7 there are eight? A. Correct. 49. Q. Line 9... or sorry, line 8, there are two? A. Correct. 50. Q. Line 9 there are 3? A. Yes. 5l. Q. Line 10 there are five?. 2 A. Yes..3 L4 l5 ~ L6 L7. La 52. Q. Line 11 there are two? A. Correct. 53. Q. Line 12 we have got two? A. M'hmm. 54. Q. 13, none? A. Yes. ~ L Q. Line 14, four? A. Yes. -n Q. Line 15, two? A. Correct. 57. Q. Line 16, four? A. Correct. 58. Q. Line 17, eight? ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SlllTE 900, TQ~ONTD., ONTARIO., MSK 1 KG (415) 3.5D~61 17 INF"q@V-IQTaRYVERBATLM~CDM

103 'V VICTORY VERBATIM 88 J. stevenson - 13 ~ 1 2 3, S I' A. Correct. 59. Q. Line 18, three? A. Yes. 60. Q. Line 19, four? A. M'hrnm. 61. Q. Line 20, one? A. Correct. 62. Q. Line 21, nine? A. Yes. 63. Q. Line 22, four? A. M'hrnm. 64. Q. Line 23, one? A. Yes. 65. Q. Line 24, we have got four? A. Yes. 66. Q. Line 25, we have got eight? A. M'hrnm. IS 19 ~ ' Q. Line 26, we have got twelve? A. Yes. 68. Q. Line 27, there are four? A. Yes. 69. Q. Line 28, there are three? A. Yes. 70. Q. Line 29, there are four? A. Yes. ERNST ex. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 9QO,.. TORONTO, ONTARIO., MSK 1 H5 (416) 3.6"Q..,61 17 INFO@VICTORYVE.RBATiM.C::OM

104 ~R.NST &. YOUNG TOWER, 22.2 BAY STREET l sulte 900, TORONTO, ONTARfO, M5K 1 H6 (416) t? INFO@VICTaRYVERBAT1M~COM

105 ~ 3 V VlLi 1 LJf-'o!y V Co ri. E=l AT I M 90 J. Stevenson - 15 I' 1 2, A. M'hmm. 8l. Q. 35, we have got six? A. M'hmm. 82. Q. 36, we have seven? A. M'hmm. 83. Q. 37, we have got three? A. Yes. 84. Q. 38, we have 19? A. M'hmm. 85. Q. 39, we have two? A. M'hmm. 86. Q. 40, we have five? A. M' hmm. 87. Q. 41, we have three. 42, we have one? A. M'hmm. '""' Q. 43, we have got two? A. M'hmm. 89. Q. 44, we have two? A. M'hmm. 90. Q. 45, we have five? A. M'hmm. 9l. Q. 46, we have nine? A. Yes. :- 2' Q. 47, we have three? A. M'hmm. ERNST &. YOUNG TDWER, 2.22 BAY STREET J SUITE: 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H5 Www~vtC:TORYVERBATtM.ODM (41 6) 3S 0~61 17 INFO@VTGTORYVERBATIM.COM

106 v VIL; I WRY VERBATIM 91 J. Stevenson Q. 48, we have three? A. Correct. 94. Q. 49, we have forty? A. M'hrnm. 95. Q. 50, we have five? A. Correct. 96. Q. 51, we have six? A. M'hrnm. 97. Q. The first 52, we have 13? A. Correct. 98. Q. The second 52, we have five? A. M'hrnm. 99. Q. 53, we have got ten. And for 54, we L4 L5 ~ t6, L7. La L have eight? A. Yes Q. And there are, in fact, 333 referred to in the table, not the 323 you used in your calculation. A. Okay Q. Do you accept that? A. Yes. '22 MR. BLUE: Well, don't accept it until 23 24, 25 you check the arithmetic. THE DEPONENT: Okay. I actually get 334 just from adding them up. ERNST' &. YOUNG TOWER,_ 222 SAY STREET l sutte 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) S5lJ~61 t 7 INFO@VIo.TORYVERBATtM~DOM

107 VICTORY VERBATIM, 92 J. Stevenson MR. WELLS: Let's mark that as Exhibit EXHIBIT NO.3: Document entitled "Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act 8 9 to MR. BLUE: Thank you. 11 BY MR. WELLS: r,, Q. When you were compiling the information in this table, which type of land use did you use when you were assessing whether it met table 1 or table 2 criteria? ;- 16 I r A. I was using the standards in the table l... sorry, the residential, parkland, institutional land use. Not the agriculture one. ~ Q. So, referring to page 1 of Exhibit 3, there is a column headed "Contaminant", and then e r 23 there is a column that says "Agricultural or Other Property Use", and then there is one that says, "Residential, Parkland, Institutional", on and on it r goes. A. M'hmm. r-" I ~, ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 SAY STREET, SUITE: 90D, i'oronto, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H6 (41 6) 3BO~51 1'1 I NFCl@VICTORYVERBATIM~COM

108 VICTORY VERBATIM 93 J. Stevenson ", Q. So, you were using the third column from the left? A. Yes Q. Okay. And we look at table 2, which column were you using? A. The same one, residential, parkland, -I LO institutional Q. Okay. Why not industrial or commercial? A. Because I believe an airport would ~, L1 i l2 13 r l' 15, ~ 20 r 21 I 22 r 23 I 2' r 25 be an institutional land use, not an industrial or a commercial land use Q. Do you have your copy of 153/04? A. I do Q. Okay. Can you look under the definition for industrial use, item number 4? A. M'hmm Q. Wouldn't, "... The airport be used for the transportation of goods or people by railway or by airplane... " A. That it would Q. And how about number II? "... Used for the storage, maintenance, fueling, or repair of equipment, vehicles, ~ ;" ~, ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 He WWW,VIDTDRYVE.R.BATIM.CDM (416) 3S0 M 61 t 7 INFO@VUJ:TDRYVERBATIM.C:OM

109 ,- VICTORY VERBATIM 94 ~ I J. Stevensori - 21 r 1!.I 2 f'''' ]1 3 or material used to maintain transportation systems... n A. Yes, that as well. (" Q. So, it should have been the fourth column; do you agree? r 6,. r' r r, i : 13 r r 16 ", 11, 18 r- 19 I 20 r ~. 23 A. Yes, I do, but with a clarification Q. Yes? A. Several of the standards in the types of property land uses are the same numbers as in the community property use Q. Well, we will come... A. So, it mayor may not make Q. Make a difference. A.... a difference Q. Well, we will come to that. Now, if you can turn up the material from your line number 7? A. The actual report? i32. Q. Yes. A. This may take a while Q. Well... MR. BLUE: That's okay. We have a while. 24 I 25 r r BY MR. WELLS: ERNST &. YOUNG TDWER t 222 BAY STREET, suite 90.0, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H,6 (416) 36'DM5117 INFO@VIUTORYVERBATtM.CDM

110 r. VICTORY VERBATIM 95,. i J. Stevenson Q. I have a copy that may save you some time. I don't know. MR. BLUE: No, no. I would like him to identify what he used MR. WELLS:" Yes. THE DEPONENT: This is the one here. Okay. BY MR. WELLS: 136. Q. Okay, if you can turn to the Maxxam report, and there is a page that has, at the bottom, 3 of 7? A. M'hmm Q. And if you look at the column for bore hole 15 SS3? A. Correct Q. And it has a sodium absorption ratio of 18? A. Correct Q. And a conductivity reading of 0.57? A. Correct Q. That's, in fact, a pass under the table 2, column 3 criteria, correct? Page 3. A. It is Q. So, in fact, you used the ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900J TORONTO, ONTAR.IO, MSK 1 H6 WWW,VIDTDRYVERBATIM.DOM (416} 36Q~5117 tnfo@victciryverbattm_odm

111 VICTORY VERBATIM 96 J. Stevenson agricultural column, didn't you? this a fail. Because you rated A. The report does ~ot specifically 4 5 r- 6! j;""""" r-..~, 7 a ;.-., I ~,,.5 r--,.6 L7 - La 19 in! indicate which samples. Q. Correct. It says... A. It's referring... Q.... it is, "... Zero of eight passed, all fail for SAR... " So, you rated the end "EC". A Could you repeat your question again? Q. You must have used the agricultural column from table 1, because you say that all the samples failed to pass the standard for conductivity, as we have noticed from page 3 of 7. The sample, "... BH15 SS3... " Is, in fact, 0.57, which is a pass under the column... the third column in table 1 of Exhibit 3. A. No. The third column of table 1, the SAR standard is Q. No, sorry. r A. The number is 18. Q. We are talking... no, no. We are ERNST os:. YOUNG TQWER~ 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) t 7 INFO@VIElTDRYVERBATIM.C:OM

112 v VIL"ILJ~Y VERBATIM 97 I J. Stevenson - 24 :-' ~- I ' talking electrical conductivity. MR. BLUE: Sorry, let him finish MR. WELLS: Okay. MR. BLUE: Go ahead. THE DEPONENT: The table 1 number? 6 7 BY MR. WELLS:,~ B Q. Right. A. For that column is Q. Correct. But I'm talking about - II l2 J. c ,.." L 6 17 lb 19!i 20 ~ 21 conductivity, a reading of 0.57 for that sample. A. The standard is Q. Correct, but you have marked it as a fail, which means you must have used the second column, where the standard is A. No Q. Well, how did you rank a 0.57 as a fail? A. I don't have it marked as a fail on the actual record Q. Well, your report, though, says it i 22 ] I I 25 did. It says, "... Zero of eight samples all fail for SAR and EC... " A. I believe it should have read, ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET} SUITE 900,. TORONTD, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H6 (41 6) 3.5n~51 17 INFO@VICTORYVERBATIM-.COM

113 v V I~ I L.Jt":.r vt=..~~atim J. Stevenson - 25 "and/or EC." 153. Q. Yes, but that's not what it says. And all of the others, you separate them out if the numbers are different. Okay. Can you pullout the report for your line 14? To help you, it's a little distinctive. There is a big "Lancorp" on the front. A. Okay 154. Q. Just as a check, tell me how many pages there are in that document? A. There are six pages in total Q. So, if you turn into the fourth page, we have a report from ENTECH? A. Correct Q. And there are four samples analyzed there, 82885, 82886, 82887, and 82888, A. M'hmm Q. And in your line 14, you report that there were four samples? A. Correct Q. Okay. Turn to the next page? MR. BLUE: Of? 159. MR. WELLS: Of the document that the witness is looking at, that they materially looked at to prepare line 14. ~RNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 SAY STR.EET, SUITE gao, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 HG. (415) 36{J-5 t 17 INFO@VlaTDRYVERBATIM.DOM

114 v V 1'-' I LJRY VERBATIM 99 J. stevenson BY MR. WELLS: 160. Q. And this is the second page, and it ~. I reports results for samples 82889, 82890, 82891, correct? A. That's correct l2 l3 l4 l5 - l6 l7 l I :' Q. Three additional samples? A. Yes. Q. If you turn to the next page, the last page of the document, there is a report for one last sample, 82892? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So, flip back to the first page we were looking at, the samples that start Okay, now, the first thing we have to deal with is this report uses an older set of units, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Micromolars per centimetre. So, we have to divide by 1,000 to get into millisiemens, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So, the readings are 0.898, 0.215, 0.202, and 0.111, correct? A. Say that again, please? Q , 0.215, 0.202, and 0.111? ERNST &: YOUNG.TClWER,. 222 SAY STREET, SUITE 900, TORONTO, ONTARiO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 36'Q"'5117 INFO@VICTORYVERBATIM.OOM

115 ,r' I v V I L.; I LJ RY VERBATI M 100 J. Stevenson - 27 I 1 I 2 ~ r 6.1 " 7 B A. M'hrnrn. Q. And then line 14 you say one of these fails for electrical conductivity, correct? And that is sample 8288S? A. That's right. Q. Okay. But if we look at 82889, 82890, and 82891, we have 0.091, 0.150, and 0.092, correct? A. That's correct. lo 169. r II I,... l l3 Q. And they are all passes? A. That's correct. Q. And if we turn to the last one, sample 82892, it's 0.24S? A. Correct Q. And that's a pass?,-. 16 A. Yes. I. l Q. So, you missed four passes? n that I A. That's correct. It would appear only reviewed the first page of the data. Q. Okay. Can you find the report for :-' 21 line 16?. 22 A. I believe this is it from Maxxam. Q. Okay. Seven pages in we have a page A. M'hrnrn. E:'RNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 SAY STREET, SUITE 900, TORONTO. ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 36" INFa@VICTD.~YVER.BATIM~CDM

116 v V I L..- I l-j I"'":. T v t:..~i::::sati M 101 J. Stevenson - 28 ~ Q. Okay. Now, if we look at the... there are four samples here, TP1, SAL, TP2, TP3, and TP4. A. M'hmm Q. Okay, and we have sodium absorption ratio results of 1.1, 0.42, and 0.41, and 1.7? A. Not on that page Q. Pardon? 9. 0 A. Not on that page Q. It's 3 of 15, at the bottom.. 1 A. Right Q. Okay. And in line 16, you say that one of the four samples passed, and that two have failed for SAR, correct?. 5 A. Yes, that's correct Q. Okay. But the two highest readings. l7 lb 19 are the ones on the outside, test pit 1, test pit 4, correct? A. Correct Q. Test pit 1 is 1.1? _21, A. Correct Q. That's greater than the standard set for agricultural use in table 1, correct? A. Yes Q. But it is less than the standard in E:RN5T &. YOUNG TOWER,. 222 SAY STREETt SUITE 9QQ J 'rorcjnto, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H6 (416) S6a~ N.F"O@VIOTORYVE.RBATlM.COM

117 v VIUTDRY VERBATIM 102 J. Stevenson - 29 c-,-! the third column, "Residential, Parkland", et cetera, which is 2.4? A. That's correct Q. So, again, you have used the agricultural column? A. In this case, that would appear so Q. Right, and the same with test pit 4, f- a 9 r- LO :, , , is less than 2.4, but greater than 1. So, again, you have used... to count that as a fail, you would have to use the agricultural column? A. Correct. MR. BLUE: Sorry, just-for the record, it appears the agricultural column is table MR. WELLS: No, table 1. MR. BLUE: Thank you BY MR. WELLS: 187. Q. Okay if you can find the material for your line 18? A. Okay, I believe I have it Q. Okay. It's hard to describe, this one has got a lot more pages in it than others. if you go into the... if you can find the Maxxam report, and turn up page 3 of that report? But ERNST &. YOUNI3 TOWE:R J 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTAR.IO, MSK 1 He. WWW,VlcrrORYVER,BATIMaCOM (415) 36'Q,,61 17 INF'D@VIG'TD~YVERBATIM.DDM

118 v VI... I LJt-<.T Vt:.t-<.E3ATIM 103 -! J. Stevenson Q. I thought it was Appendix B. " 2 A. Appendix A of the document? 3 A. What page did you say? Q. It's page 3 of has notations a 191. on my copy, at the bottom. A. Yes. Q. Okay, and so we have got three samples here, bore hole 1, bore hole 2, and bore 9. 0 hole 4. Have I read this correctly? A. Correct Q. Okay. And if we look at. 2 \3 l4 l5 _l conductivity first, we have readings of 0.56, 0.29, A. That's correct. Q. And if you look at your line 18, you say that only one out of the three samples pass.. l7 Two failed for EC and SAR. That's ju'st wrong, la 19,W correct? Because two of them are less than A, Correct. It should be SAR only. Q. Right. They all pass. A. Two failed for SAR. Q. Let's just have a look at table 2, column 4. A. Table 1. Q. No. Well, sorry, we were in table ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER, 222 SAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 He ( a~61 17 INFO@VIO:TQRYVE.RBATIM.OOM

119 v V IL.I I WKT vt:..~r::latim 104 r"""' I, J. Stevenson - 31 ~, I 1 1. Yes, you're correct. But if we look at table 2, 2 you... sorry, I was getting ahead of myself. You say one of three fail. Two fail for SAR only. A. That's correct. Q. Right. But if you use the fourth column of table 2, this industrial, commercial, community property use, itls actually a pass, that 5.2, correct? A. The 5.2, yes. Q. Right. So MR. BLUE: I? I'm sorry, table 2 or table MR. WELLS: Table 2. I. 15 BY MR. WELLS: Q. Okay. MR. BLUE: Sorry, could you just repeat your question, please, Mr. Wells? 201. MR. WELLS: The question is that the MR. BLUE: We are under the column table I 2, SCS in Mr. Stevenson's report MR. WELLS: We are in... MR. BLUE: In line MR. WELLS:... line 18. The column... MR. BLUE: It says, j i J E:R.NST os::. YOUNG TOWER~ 2.22 BAY STReET, SUlTE 9QO, TORONTO, ONTARIO~ MSK 1 He (416) 35-o~6117 INFD@VtaT'ORYVERBATIM~OOM

120 - V... _... _1 IIVI , J. Stevenson - 32 '. 1 "... One of three samples failed for SAR 2 only... " MR. WELLS: No, " ".Two fail for SAR only... " Is what it says. And I have just -put to the witness that if we look at Exhibit 3, column 4, of table 2, the reading of 5.2 is, in fact, a pass. MR. BLUE: Do you agree with that? ~ BY MR. WELLS: 205. Q. Correct? A. Yes. MR. BLUE: Okay. : BY MR. WELLS: Q. Okay. Pull up the material for line 19. A. Okay Q. Okay. And if you turn to the page that is numbered 3 of 12 at the bottom? A. Okay Q. And if you look down, there is a row, "Acid Extractable Copper"? A. Correct. ERNST & YOUNG TDWER~ 222 SAY STREET, SUITe: SQOt TORONTO, ONTARlO, M5K 1 Hs WViW.VID.TDRYVERBATIM.DtlM (416) S6 D~61 17 INFO@VIC:TaRYVE~BAT1M~oaM

121 v VIW I DRY VERBATIM 106 J. Stevenson - 33 r I I 2 r 3, C C-. 1 ~ r! , l Q. And there is one reading of 400 micrograms per gram, correct? "A. Correct. Q. Okay. Is that more or less than you would get in a One A Day vitamin tablet? A. I don't know. I'm not familiar with that. Q. There. I brought my bottle. I think you'll see that a One A Day tablet has 2 milligrams of copper? A. Correct, it does. Q. That's 2,000 micrograms? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. So, a One A Day tablet has five times the amount of copper as this soil sample? L A gram of the soil sample? A. Based on that data, yes. Q. Okay. 19 MR. BLUE: But a copper tablet is 20 assuming voluntary risk MR. WELLS: Well, I'll be getting to 22 that later, and I have let the witness answer. MR. BLUE: Do you adopt my answer? 25 THE DEPONENT: Pardon me? EF<.N5T &. YOUNS TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, sutte 9.00, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 He (41 S} 36D~6117 INF'O@VICTORYVERBATtM.CDM

122 ~. VIc..;IU~Y VERBATIM 107 J. Stevenson - 34, c-! MR. BLUE: Do you adopt my answer? That a copper tablet is assuming voluntary risk. THE DEPONENT: Yes, I agree with that. But also, I would like to point out that that's not soil. These are soil standards. 6 ; BY MR. WELLS: 216. Q. Yes, I understand that. A. So, what relevance does it have? 217. Q. You're popping that directly in your mouth, the tablet, correct? A. Correct Q. You're not getting the soil directly,4 in your mouth. If you're a neighbour, it's hundreds l5 l6 of yards away at best, correct? MR. BLUE: Let's move on. You've made 17 your point, Mr. Wells. So, let's move on. r MR. WELLS: Okay. We will mark as Exhibit 4 the packaging for a One A Day Tablet. e- n I 12 c- 13 EXHIBIT NO.4: Packaging for Men's One a Day vitamins MR. BLUE: Just so I'm clear, is it the ERNST os::. YOUN G TOWER, 222 BAY STREETs SUlTE:. 900" TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H5 (416) t 7" INFO@VID:TDRYVERBATIM.ODM

123 v 108. J. Stevenson - 35 rl!! position of AirPark that the soil standards are not appropriate? MR. WELLS: Yes. 4 MR. BLUE: Okay, thank you. 5,. 6 BY MR. WELLS: 7 ;-! B 9. 0 c-' Q. Can you pull up the report for your line 21? A. Okay, I have it here Q. Okay. Now, this document has two different sets of data, am I correct? There is a r section at pages 11, 12, and 13 of the Coffey Geotechnics report, that discusses one group. A. That's correct Q. Okay. And so in your line 21, you :-' l6. 17 break them down. You talk about four of nine samples passing table 1, and then you talk about zero of four samples. So, you have broken them into _ 21 their two different groups? A. Right Q. Okay. Now, if we can deal with the 22 nine, can you give me... sorry. I'm lost in my own! 23 notes. Where did you get the data for the sodium r absorption ratio? A. For the one set, it's right there. ERNST &:. YD.UNG TOWER,_ 22.2 SAY STR.EET} SUITE 900 J TORONTO, ONTARtO( MSK 1 H5 (416) INF'D.@VIC:TDRyVE.RBATIM~OOM

124 v VlulL.Jt"'<:.T vt:...t'<.i::::iaiim 109 J. Stevenson - 36 r 1! I Q. Right. That's the group of four? A. Correct Q. But the other one, the putative 4 r i;, 5 nine? A. The nine samples are discussed in r- 6! 7 8 page 11 of the actual text of the report Q. Yes. A. Nine samples were randomly selected..li". 9 LO 228. Q. Right. A. Okay, the discussion of the nine is -, II in here. L2 MR. BLUE: When you say "in here", what e- I' page are you referring to? THE DEPONENT: Page MR. WELLS: Page 12, below the table. THE DEPONENT: Yes. They indicate three samples of the nine meeting table 1 and 2 18 standards. And then a mixture of samples 19 ~ 20 r 21 I I 22 r 23 failing EC for table 1 or table 2. the discussion of the nine there MR. WELLS: Right. BY MR. WELLS: That's r Q. In fact, only six were tested,.correct? If you look at the table, there is a tick ~ r I. ERNST &. YOUNG T[JWERf. 222 SAY STREET, SUITE: 900, -TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 36' INFO@VICTD.RyVERBATIM.OOM

125 v VI"" I LJ,",,-Y VI:.H.BATIM 110 J. Stevenson - 37!' 1,, r-,! 5 r- 6 7, I' 8 r 9 lo mark if it was tested against 153/04, criteria. That's the fourth column from the left. A. But the last column indicates analysis for VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons as well. Q. Right. A. So, there were nine samples that were analyzed. Q. No, I know there were nine samples, but only six were analyzed against EC and SAR. A. Okay. r, II 234. Q. Can you find the report for line 22? l2 A. Okay, I have it here. r l Q. And if you turn into the report, l4 r L5 it's the one that has the five from the fax machine in the upper right-hand corner? Are we dealing with l6 the same thing? This is an AGAT certificate of L7 L8 L9 i, 20,. 21 I 22 ~ analysis, just to make sure we are looking at the same thing. It looks the same. And we have got data for four different test pits. It's a little hard to read. A. Correct. Q. Let's see if I have got the EC numbers correct: O.776? r,. I could be. A. It's hard to say. It looks like it ~. E:RNST &. YOUNG TQWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE 900, TORONTD, ONTAR.IO, MSK 1 H5 (415) 3Sq~ 5 t 1.7 INPO@VICTDRYVERBATIM.CDM

126 v VI... I L..J~I vt::..t"<.t:iaiim 111 J. Stevenson Q. Or 0.770? 0.77-something or other, anyway? A. Correct., " L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 l7 l Q. Okay ? If it will help, I've... A. It could be Q.... brought a magnifying glass. A. Yes, that's correct Q. Okay ? A. Yes Q. And the last one, 0.650? A. L'ooks like it Q. Okay. Now, in line 22 of your report under the table 1 criteria, you say all of them fail EC. A. That's correct Q. And that would be true, only if you used the agricultural use column from table 1, correct? Where the standard is 0.47? A. Yes, that would be true Q. Right. So, the and 0.518, in fact, pass table 1 on the residential, parkland, et cetera use, correct? A. Correct Q. Can you find the report for your ERNST &. YOUNG: TOWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUlTE 900, TORONTO, ONTARIO, M5K 1 H5 (416) 85U; M INFO@V1DTOR''(VERBATlM.ODM

127 1 v.,_~"",,"'i v&;;:.,ro;:.caiim 112 I, J. Stevenson - 39 ~, 1 line 26? 2 I, A. Okay, I believe I have it here. Q. Okay. I just want to make sure I was going to direct you to the right place. turn to the Maxxam report, page 3 of 17? A. Okay. If you Q. Now, in your line 26, you say one of these samples fails for electrical conductivity, 9 lo _ l2 l correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, is not the highest reading for EC in this table the result for TP SA2, with a reading of 0.49? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. And that is a fail under table 1, only if you use the agricultural column, correct? A. Yes. Q. It's less than the 0.57 for the other uses? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And in line 26 of your report, under the table 1 column, you also say that one fails for SAR? A. That's correct. ERNST &. YOUNG TOWER~ 222 SAY STREET, sutte 900 J TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (4'6) 35' INFO@VIO:TORYVERBATIM.COM

128 v VI&...;lI~l""iO.l v.r:::.,t"i:.caiim 113 J. Stevenson Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, but is 2 3 not the highest sodium absorption ratio recorded on page 3 of 17, the reading of 1.7 for test pit 8, S3? A reading of 1.7? 5 A. That's correct Q. And that is a pass under table 1 for ~.1 l2 l3 l4 l5 l6 l , 25 residential, parkland use, correct? A. Yes, it is Q. So, you have used agricultural again? A. It looks that way, yes Q. I'm going to suggest to you that you used it throughout. A. That may be Q. Okay. A. It was my Q. At the same... A. Sorry Q. Sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. A. It was my recollection that I used the other one, but perhaps not Q. Okay. MR. BLUE: Should we take a break? 260. MR. WELLS: Sure. arnst &. YaUNG TOWER, 222 BAY STREET. SUITE 900, TORDNTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) l? I NF'O@VIO:TORYVERBATIM.ODM

129 v v'... 'wky VERBATIM 114 J. stevenson - 41 r~ 1 r'-" " 3 -, DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD MR. BLUE: I've informed Mr. Stevenson that he can't talk to me during the break MR. WELLS: Thank you. A BRIEF RECESS 9,0,I 2 l3 L4, l5 JEFF STEVENSON, resumed CONTINUED EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLS: 262. Q. Now, looking at your affidavit of July the 22nd, and Exhibit A to that affidavit, do I correctly understand that in your conclusions, you made no comment on potential off site impacts? ~, L. L7 L ~ 21 22,23 24 " : 25 A. I did not. It wasn't part of my scope of work Q. Okay. But we have now got what is paragraph 8 in your'affidavit, which... A. Correct Q. And that's as close as you come to a statement of potential off site impacts? A. That's correct Q. Okay. Now, before you did this affidavit, were you told that Environment Canada had, I, I 'I E:R.NST &. YOUNG TI:lWER, 222 BAY STREET, SUITE SOOt TORONT0 1 ONTARIO, MSK 1 HG (416) 3S'Cl~61 17 INF'D@VIc:.TORYVE:RBATlM.OOM.

130 r, v VI'-1'IL...I[""I;.1 vc:..n::oaiim 115 J. stevenson - 44! Q. You didn't know about the Environment Canada conclusion before you did your ~~! 3 affidavit? A. I did not know about the conclusion Q. Correct. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, you have done no testing yourself? 7 A.' That's correct. ~ I. r 8 9 lo 280. Q. So, you haven't, for instance, checked the sodium absorption ratio or the electrical conductivity of the soil on the sides of ~-.., 11 Appleby Line or Bell School Line? I , A. That's correct Q. And would it be a fair assumption that they are probably elevated because of the use of road salt in the winter? A. I can't comment on that. I have no way of knowing that Q. Right.. Okay. You did no well testing? A. No Q. If you were going to comment on off site impacts, that is what you would have to do, right? A. If we were going to investigate them, yes. ER.NST &. YOUNG TClWER, 22.2 BAY STREET, SUlTE 9QO, TORONTO, ONTARIO, MSK 1 H6 (416) 3SQ INFO@VIO:TORYVERBAT1M.CDM

131 ADMINISTRATION_ Tab 12

132 r 116 r I" r " ~ r- ;1 I r I I r : 0-1,, Ibis is Exhibit "A" referred to in the Affidavit of Scott Stewart swom July 30, 2013 Unda Dianne Robi",on, a Commissioner, etc., Province of Ontario, for. Gardiner Roberts LLP, Lawyers, Expires August 17, 2015.

133 r~,.----, r--- r-j [J c-:: r-j r-j ["J r-"j ~ ~ ~ ~ , SCHED UL E C COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN RURAL PLANNING AREA,7~, II~~~~:~'~~;'''~ ~I!._~,'' I! ~-:'.. ;.":.. "-=;.-,, ~~~:~~COIl-~~-)~J'::_~ ~~.-;;;' ~ ~,: ~~H_:::_~~ t~ ~;. ~ :;~:~~ :...~"r'~ 'Il,l"a ',':.":,,~~:,]'(l,";1,':- s:-~:_~:; G,~, ;;-~ ~s~r.,:.c i ' «/ "I.. = =.;;;.>...- =...:.;0 = = ~ = =.~ ~...-.;.;.0.-.= ='11.. '-"-' 0.;... I! ~ ~~ an = ~ = - = ' = ~\ =- -~ ~ ~ Ii ~ - ~~i ~.. _~.! r~.. ~, ~ " W " '1!~ er ~. - 4:-':V-~ T ~ ~r "VI. 'CJ' ~ :-,~ ;;!. '. ", -,',i! '~', :",,--:"'I:rca- -;:~. ~..,._[ ~~_" =-.J,I( -. a 'to. -'Ii -~-. l -- - ~ - '- -,~... <l'< _ (. :.' ~. :<: "II C) *'5- :> ~ _._._~-i~ ; ~ II.~, ; ~ ~.~ ~ i! ~ ~ - : l ~..'11 i 00 /~ = f '. / 1 -~ - ~ W H I' ::'":S:'~-': "\.',U'._ " '. o,.i -..-,.- '_'.iib _*D23 ~ I -W" I / " "I'lSS... _. i ll. 1---'----- '" I I I I I I I I I I I..!.'"-i.r ~.;. ~ - - f' '"'" -,-.-..,'-'...,.! ". ' I...,._ '\ill".@i!p ill :, :;':",:i '.~ ~ -- : :- :: :\.U: :~. - : : :. :-: ;:? \ : :: :: -y :: :,::;. ",.' ".,,, ~~~~r ~!@l~~='-' 'w z <i' :;; UJ r: \~R9 if) '" w i '1: JUNE legeu-nq Niagara Escarpment Plan Area o Greenlands (Escarpment Plan Area).0 Greenlands (Non Escarpment Plan Area) o Escarpment Protection Area o Escarpment Rural Area I~~ I Escarpment Urban Area r" -- 1 L J k. ~.."' 1 Agriculll.lral Rural Area Mineral Resource Extraction Area o Rural Settlement Area NOTE: For information on Deferrals and Referrals ('0 or 'R), please see the ExplanatolY Notes of the Official Plan... ~ owddo C!::J 0 CJ e Rural Planning Area C'" '''''''''' '''i Environmentally Sensillve Area ~...," " ~.'~' '; {Nolo: Boundar!c. bas~tl on Map 1 of lilo Ro~lon of Hullon Omelol Plan (2006)) f'i t:i:j t:l> Par!(way Belt Plan Area ~ ",",:;;:;E1 (NolO: Alilondl within PIllkwl!Y Boll WeslP!an Area subjeolto Dnferml "09)? Airport

134 AOM!N1STRATION_ Tab 13

135 This is Exhibit" A" referred to in the Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi sworn before me, at the City of Toronto, this 25 th day of July,

136 119 erodromes" CAUTION: THE INFORMATION IN THIS PUBLICATION PUBLISHED BY NAV CANADA OF THE CONVEN SOURCE OF CAN SOURCE 0 HER MAJESTY THE QUE

137 AERODROMEIFACILlTYDlf'ECTORY f? BUFFALO NARROWS (FIRE CENTRE) SK (Heli) (Cont'd) CBN.3 HEll DATA RCR 29S' x 295.' asphalt/gravel Opr No win maint COMM MF Regina rdo.14-02z orr tfc SNM centered on Buffalo Narrows AID adj 4500 ASL (CAR ) BURGEO (CALDER HEALTH CARE CORP) Nl (Heli) CBC9, ~~--~---, REF N W Adj S 21 'W UTC-3112(2112)' Elev 100' AS012 OPR Calder Health Care Coq)oration Cert PN FLT PLN NOTAM'FILE CYJT. FIC Halifax 866-WXBRIEF or (French) 866-GOMETEO (Toll free within Canada) or (Toll free within Canada & lisa). Fit Pins by Fax 902, & include phone numbers where pilot can be reached prior to dep. ACC (IFR only) Gander or ~--~~ ~ HEll DATA 50' x 50' concrete RCR Opr' Ltd win main! I... ~~. COMM PRO ATF tfc NM 3100 ASL Arr/dep btwn 030' & 120' and btwn 190' & 320' fr pad. BUR!:.INGTON EXECUTIVE ON CZBA REF apr N432630W 'W UTC-5(4) Elev602' VTA A5000 L06 T2 CAp Vince Rossi (Day), (Night) Reg PF B-1,2 C-3.4,5,6: FLTPLN FIC WX NOTAM FILE CYHM London 866-WXBRIEF (Toll free. within Canada) or (Toll free within Canada & USA) WxCam SERVICES FUEL 100LL, JA cardlock dispenser OIL 65, 80, 100 S 1,2,3.4,5,6

138 B9B AERQDROMElFACIUTY DIRECT0RY 121., CZBA Rwy 14(141 0 )/32(321 0 ) 3763x75 asphalt/turf, centre 60' asphalt Thld 14displ 90'. Thld 32 displ 324'. Rwy 09(086 )/27(266 ) 2465x50 asphalt Rwy 09 down 0,41 % Thld 09 displ 328'. ~ll_~ BURLINGTON. EXECUTIVE ON (Coofdl RWYDATA RCR Opr' 13-23Z:j: ot Spectrum AirWays No win niainl.rwy LIGHTING.. 14-AS(TElO}AP, 32-AS(TE LO) AP ARCAl type::!:.. COMM.ATF UNICOM ltd hrs OfT tfc NM below 2500 A",-L PRO. Circuit hgt 1500' ASL. Rgt hand circuits Rwy27 & 32 (CAR ). As soon as... practicable after take-off fr Rwy 14 tum left 5 to?void noise sensitive area.. -::' Helicopters follow fixed-wing circuit procedures. Rwy preferential. CAUTION:'.. ;1,,:50 f!trees on apch to Rwy 32 lac aprx 400'JrorTl thld of Rwy 32. AID bcn onlbp of twr ':.:;;'c' ]71 ASL (164 AGL) aprx 1635' N AID. No runou! areaiivblb'eyond end ofrwy 27. ;fi:~::' BURNS LAKE BC i ;.. REF OPR PF FLT PlN SERVICES FUEL N W l1nw 22 E UTC:8(7) Elev 2343' A5013 l01' CAP Aprt Society ~7364, Reg A-1 C-2, NOTAM FilE CWO FIC Kamloops 866-WXBRIEF (Toll free.. within Canada) or (Toll free.within.canada & USA) WX lvi/is JPvl)2S (seecomm) WxCam OIL RWY DATA RCR 100ll, JA 2S or 2S WSO Rwy 11(115 )/29(295 ) 5060x75 asphall Aprt caretaker or Opr. LIGHTING 11-(orE ME) Pl, 29-('fE ME) P1 ARCAl type K COM!VI RCO 123.3(5 (FISE) (best) ATF tfc NM 5400 ASl PAL Vancouver Clr LWIS (Pvt) CYPZ CAUTION Rdo cll aclt opr fr rwy to 500 AGL wknds Mar-Nov.

139 AOMINISTRATION_ Tab 14

140 122 the swom _:oll[lmis~ione!>for taking aftldavits

141 123

142 124

143 ..... ~""'TCt.TION Tab 15

144 125 before me, at this 25'11 li:lkm!;; aftldavits

145 126 CIRCUIT THE ZBA... _..,.... _ ;-....,. ~ I, ' ",.. _---. -" - '. Volume 1, Issue 1 Thursday, December 28, 2006 r ~ I r New Owner with New Ideas! How many times hove you found yourself saying" it's perfectly located! It has so much potentia!!". Burlington Airpark; positioned perfectly with the right ideas and the right owners. In Early December 2006, Vince Rossi acquired the Airpark, and he has pions! No doubt Vince, a hangar owner and aircraft owner on the field, has a lso noted the perfectly positioned field, right in the mid- die of the most populous area of Canada, less than 50 Nautical miles from the USA, and next to the fastest growing town in Canada: Milton Ontario. To many of us, it wos always obvious that the field had vast potential, however, until recently we simply had no opportunity to, make a difference. Promptly on the withdrawal of previous offers, Vince closed a deal on a hand-shake, that, r am sure will resu lt in a better, saf er, friendlier place to ho ve your hangar clod p lane, Vince is intent on making Burlington Airpark an inviting environment for visitors, existing fliers and hangar owners alike. That attitude alone goes a long way to moving the airpark forward securing its future as a viable aerodrome into the f oreseeable future. The acquisition is a breath of fresh air, and g ives the Airpark on opportunity to become entrenched in the community, and to grow in popularity. It has the chance to become a destination, not only for flyers who'll choose to land and enjoy a burger at the p lanned restaurant, but for the public at lorge to stop and visit and be welcomed. Planned improvements ore well under way, directed by Bruce Johnston, also a hangar and aircraft owner, and I know we'll all enioy the atmosphere and the enhancements in no time at all! What's happening? o ezba IS ON THE MOVE! MANy PLANS "-NO lots OF ACTION IS IN THE FUTURE FOR THE AIRPARK. We W ilt SURELY SEE A CHANGED ATMOSPHERE, AN IMPROVED FAOUTY, AND A SAFER PLACE TO FLY. BE PART OF THE FUTURE! Inside this issue: [T'S STARING ALREADY! 1 CLEARING THE WAY for 2 NEW HANGARS TAXI ANYONE? 2 It's hard to believe, but no time was wasted getting started. The machines were dropped off in the north field a couple of day s bef ore closing, and the engines storted the day they took over! There's lots of work to be done, and lhere is already f urther invo?stment in the oirport by Vince. Just a few of the p lanned improvements are outlined in this first newsletter, and many are underway as you read this. Both Vince and Bruce are dedicated to the success of the airpark, and they are wasting no time in their ef- forts to make it grow, thrive and succeed well into the future. If you've not visited your hangar/ tie-down lately, make a trip out there and take a look at progress! A NOTE FROM SPECTRUM 2 COMFORTS AND 3 CONVENIENCES FUTURE BRIGHT FOR NIGHT 3 flyers

146 127 Volume 1, Issue 1 As fast as a lawyer con draw up papers, prep work began on the construction of new hongor$. These hangars will add to the community of flie rs at the Airpark. They will be constructed with consideration for taxiway clearances, appropriate drainage and current fire protection requi rements. Currently, land is being prepared at both the east and west ends of the north row. These hangars will be avail- able for use as early as the spring 2007, and orders will be accepted anytime by calling Bruce Johnston at the airpark This is a great home for a ircraft, and these q ua lity hangars will be a great place for our flying colleagues to base their birds! Make sure you pass on the news! Burlington Airparl( is op~n for business! GROUNO PREPARATIONS ARE UNDERWAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HANGARS As you a lready know, Burlington Airpark extended to the south for a totol overall length of 3700 feet. Currently, we're not utilizing it fully for take-off because of the back-track requirement. That is about to change as well. On December 20, the extension of the toxiwoy began. The plan is to extend th e taxiway the full length of the runwo y, and put a ho lding boy / run-up area at the end. This enhancement w ill streamline departures and help move traffic better on those great flying days when we're all burning holes in the sky! THE WINDS OF CHANGE ARE RIGHT DOWN THE RUNWAY! THE PLANS ARE GOOD AND THE P-'>.CE IS SWIFT! Note... this is taken from a sign posted on the front door of Spectrum Airways, and is published here with their permission... "November 20, 2006 We at Kovachik Aircraft Services and Spectrum Airways would like to welcome the new Property Management Company owned by Mr. Vjnce Rossi. We ore happy to focus all of our attentions on the management of our companies to better serve you our appreciated customers. We are committed to the success and the future of these companies. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact us. Thank you for your continued patronage. Paul, Jeon, Teresa, Carolyn, Chris, Amanda Ko vachik More work unclerwoy Page 2

147 128 Volume I, Issue 1 r For the last while, if you've been on approach to Burlington at night, you have been well aware of the lighting issues. The VASI is very bright, while the runway lights are dimmer down one side thon the other, and con be intermittent at times. The correction of these issues is a priority for the airpark, and is well underway. Over the coming months you may see men and equipment next to the runway working on the lighting system, and you should be cautious while landing, departing or taxiing on Of course, efficient properly working a irport lighting will only enhance safety and security for us all. Night vision enhanced! Some other pions that have been discussed amount to "comforts and conveniences" for us. Some ini1icd work has started on installing a 24- hour self serve fuel system for both Av-Gos and Jet A 1. The system will be a stand alone system utilizing credit-card payments and will be well-lit and available all the time, similar to the station at Smith Falls and Gore Bay. Stand-by for more on this planned enhancement. The doys of carrying buckets of w ater from your rain barrel could be over soon! Planning at the airport includes the installation of a ~oin-operated plane-wash station, a convenience that will be welcomed by a ircraft owners. Anther p lanned improvement thot I'm sure we' ll all appreciate is the widening of The p lans are well underway for this improvement and it is one of the things that the airpark needs to attract visitors and more business. Ideos like these can only make Burlington a irpark a better place to land yourself! FILLED WITH IMPROVEMENTS AND ADDED CONVENIENCES, BURLINGTON AIRPARK IS OFF AND RUNNING! o Burlington Airpark Main contact number 90S o Vince Rossi O wner Bruce Johnston Development & Const ruction Manager Milt Farrow A irpark Manager and Public Relations Tim Crawford Airpark Advisory Committee With any ownership change, there are issues that need to be addressed, and your patience through this time is much appreciated. The purchase of the Airp a rk and the enhancements currently underway and planned for the future are positive for our flying futures, and the investment we already have in the airport. e ZBA. The only things up in the air are our planes! Pa ge 3

148 ADM!NISTRAT!ON_ Tab 16

149 129 IS to in the Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi swom before at City oftorol1to, this 25 th of 20 l3 ror taking affidavits

150 l ~ 130 r I l l ' ~ :.~ ~ " ", I ('119' I ~ U ii I.'."';'!.l if.~. "L ";;.1 Ii l' \. <i lci ' " _J _._... '-'-----._- ---_.._--_. Volume 1, issue 2 Friday, March 30, 2007 r, r r RWY 14 DEPARTURE IN S1FIRUCTIONSi: UMIPOl'tTA NlT!.. ~. As soon as pracucal. after lake-off from runway. 14. l";:-,. turn let. So te avolll ~) noise samrive area. p E!,",. ' e..a~ n. Un";,..,,"..;t!f.!f RWY 14 DEPARTURE SIGNED We wont to remind a ll pilots departing runway 14, that there is a procedure that must be followed with respect to headings. This procedure will ensure we maintain our good relationship with our neighbours around the airport. The above sign is located at the north end of runway 14, but in our haste to get oirborne, sometimes we don't read it, so here is what the sign says... DEPARTURE PROCEDURES: '~SSOON AS PRACTICAL AF TER TAKE-OFF FROM RUNWAY 14, TURN LEFT 5 DEGREES TO AVOID NOISE SENSITIVE AREA." Of course, this means that after rotation, and when a positive rate of climb is achieved, and the pilot de. termines it is safe to do so, turn to a heading of 135 degrees. This message has been stressed by Spectrum Airways to it's instructors and students. Compliance is mandatory, and I encourage each of you to follow Spectrum's professional approach to this. It is our intention to maintain a good working relationship with the residents around the a irport, ond by complying with this mandatory departure requirement, we will achieve that goal. For the most part, it is the people who use the airport, us, that need to help with public relations, and by complying with the departure procedures, you contribute to good public relations. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. What's happening? CZBA IS ON TliE MOVE! MANY PlANS AND tots OF ACTION IS UNDERWAY AT THE AIRPARI(. THE FIRST QUARTER WAS NOT WITH OLIT IT'S CHALlENGES, BUT THERE IS A LARGE COMMITMENT TO MAI(E THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT W ILL ENHANCE ALL OUR EXPERIENCES AT CZBA! Inside this issue: RWY 14 DEPARTURE 1 SNOW REMOVAL 1 SNOW Rr:M O VA~ WOR K H ANGAR MODS 2 Hopefully, as you read this newsletter, the snow piles will be melted away, and we con start thinking about spring flying! As you may have noticed, the snow clearing this year included much of the apron area located directly in front of your hangar, connecting it to the ce n- trol taxiway. While snow removal for this area is the responsibility of each of the hangar owners according to the lease, the decision to dear the snow from these apron areas was made as a courtesy. Obviously there is a cost for the additional w ork a nd I know those of us who had to shovel less this year are grateful. The desire to continue to provide this service is onl y inhibited by the costs associated with it. We will continue to assess this type of service and it's affect on the total cost of operation. PASS-CARD SYSTEM HYDRO SERVICE CONCERNS & plans RATES AND RESEARCH 3 C ONTACT INFO 3 2 3

151 131 Volume I, issue 2 This is something that we must stond firm on for many reasons. Beyond roufin~ repair of your hangar, any una~ proved alteration or moclilicotions to the hangar ;s strictly forbidden, including fhe use 01 unapproved contractors. One of the main reasons for having to take this hard position is the liability associated with work that is substandard or not approved. Even where the wo rk is being done by a contractor, that contractor must first be approved and show evidence of va lid Insurance. Secondly, property to)(e5 are bosed on standard hangars, and enhancements to a hangar affect the taxes that the airport pays for the hangar buildings. This is a cost that is passed on in the cost of the leases. We simply request that you pre-approve any work you'd like to do to your hangar in advance with the office. Th is issue is so serious, that failure to abide by the above will resu lt in lease termination. HANGARS ARE RISING UP AND WILL BE READY SPRING 2007 As you already know, Burlington A irpark is e)(tending the taxiway serving While the work has had to cease for the w inter, expect to start using a fully extended taxiway in late spring. The plan is to extend the taxiway the full length of the runwoy, widen the enti re taxiw ay. and put a holding bay / run-up area 01 both ends. During construction, the trucks w ill need access across the North hangar access taxiways, and the pavement will be torn up. repla ced by stone. During this time, you are encouraged ;0 shur down and tug your plane across this area jf you feel fhere is a possibilify 01 Damage. The inconvenience will certainly be worth it with the result being new holding boys, and the wider taxiway adding fo safer operations at the : airport! Currently, driving to your hangar is forbidden according to the CARs which restricts any vehicle movement airside, unless the airport operator g ives implicit permission to do so. Very soon, one of the luxuries that we will see, is the availability of a pass-card, that will provide pilots/ hangar owners permission to drive their vehicle to their hangar. Pilots/ hangar owners will be able to park inside their hangars when they are away. This will provide more security for your vehicle. Those of you who choose to take advantage of this bene- fit will be required to sign and acknowledge basic rules for airside operation of their vehicle. The cards will be available at a nominal cost. You will be notified as soon as the system is up and ready for use! More work underway Page 2

152 132 Volume I, Issue 2 LIGHTING THE WAY! For the last while, if you've been on approach to Burlington at night, you have been well aware of the lighting issues. The VASI is very bright, while the runway lights are dimmer down one side than the other, and can be intermittent at times. The correction of these issues is a priority for the airpark, and is well underway. Over the coming months you may see men and equipment next to the runway working on the lighting system, and y ou should be cautious while landing, departing or taxiing on Of course, efficient properly working airport lighting will only enhance safety and security for us all..aiczba Lighting you wa y! CZBA CLASSIFIEDS Got something for sale? Think some of your fellow hangar owners might be interested? Wonder how you can reach them? Don't wont to pay the commercial papers for the privilege of doing so? Advertise in this newsletter. It will reach all the Hangar owners on the field as well a s a host of others that are on our mail list and list. We are introducing a "classified" list in this letter each quarter, so if you have anything to add, us at info@burlingtonairpark.com or call us at It's free! ~ I CZBA THE W INDS OF CHANGE A RE RIGHT DOW N THE RUNW A Y! TH E PLANS A RE GOOD AND THE PACE IS SWIFT! HANGARS HANGARS HANGARS Everyday we get inquiries regarding hangars. M any people want to purchase, hangars. As well, we get inquires to rent available space. If you have a hangar that you might be interested in selling, or renting, please contact the office. W e might have the information on file that w ill help you sell your hangar. Burlington Airpark is intent on helping it's customers ma x imize their va lue in both utility and investment, and part of that effort includes assisting each of y ou se ll and buy hangars. ezba is the new place to land!! More work underway Page 3

153 133 l Volume 1, issue 2 HANGAR LEASE RAT ES AND RESEARCH As you know I rotes hove in- To that end, we have creased by approximately conducted 0 study of other 20% in first billing, a competing lease rates to regrettably necessary step to determine our level of ensure that the a irpark can competitiveness. At this time, continue to operate. We are it would appear that even aware of the impact of such after the increase, ezba is increases on everyone, still one of the most cost however, such an increase effective airports to base was warranted considering your plane... and we will the considerable amount of continue tp do what we can work that is being put into the to remain that way. airpark. It is only our intention to charge a fair lease rate, compared to other local airports. AICZBA ezsa UNSAF E HYDRO SERVICE ON TH E RADAR In addition to the planned Plane Wash, 24- hour fuel service and the w idening of 32/14, investigation into rectifying the unsafe hydro cond itions in the centre 2 rows of the north hangars and the west facing row has begun. If the service is not brought up to code, Hydro w ill d isconnect service entire ly to any unsafe condition. The service in these rows of hangars must be corrected to avoid constant interruption of the service, or worse, a catastrophic loss by fire. At this time, we are investigating the costs associated with this correction, including the comparisons with hangars served by individual meters (which is the ideal solution, and the most cost ly), sub-meters and upgrading the currently "community" service currently serving those hangars. Upgrading will enhance safety and avoid catastrophe!! Contact, Patie nce and Communication Burlington Airpark Main contact number Vince Rossi Owner ':r' "i' ',", " Bruce Johnston Development & Construction Manager ezsa Fire of a few years back Milt Farrow Airpark Manager and Public Relations Ti m Crawford Airpark Advisory Committee With any ownership change, there are issues that need to be addressed, and your patience through this time is much appreciated. The purchase of the Airpark and the enhancements currently underway and planned for the future are positive for our flying futures, and the investment we a lready have in the airport. e ZBA. The only things up in the oir are our plones! Page 4

154 AOM!NISTRATION_ Tab 17

155 This is Exhibit "BBB" referred to in the Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi swom before me, at the City of Toronto, this 25 th day of July,

156 CITY OF Burlington --~~:7;:W ~" '~ Telephone: Fax: (905) Extension 7672 (905) May 3, 2013 Burlington Executive Airport 5342 Bell School Line Burlington, ON L7M OP1 * * ORDER TO COMPLY Reference: Attention: Location: No Permit Number Mr. Vil1ce Rossi Burlington Executive Airpm-t Dear Mr. Rossi: Site alterations are currently being undertaken at the Burlington Executive Airport. A review of our records indicates that a Site Alteration Permit has not heen ohtained for this property, nor has Site Plan Approval, or Building Permit been issued. Fill material is being hauled into the site and the grades are being altered at all or some of addresses known as 5260, 5296, 5300, 5316, 5342 Bell School Line and 5351 Appleby Line (all properties associated with the airport), possibly impacting the area drainage system, without a Site Alteration Permit. By-law , enacted and passed by City Council in January 2003, requires that appropriate site alterations be permitted. The Site Alteration By-Law may be viewed on the City's Website at: btt!lj 1v1WW.burlineton.cafClerks!Bv-laws/htmI/ htm By-law prohibits sitealterations that result in, among other items: Q flooding or a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent lots. Unfortunately, the net effect of the site alterations under taken on your proper,), may resu.lt in flooding or ponding on adjacent lot(s), and a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent lots. Site alterations are permitted provided they do not negatively impact others or the environment. Please stop site alterations immediately and apply for a Site Alteration Permit. Compiiance,'lith this order is required,'lithin ten (10) days. Other orders to comply may follow. Non-compliance with By-law may result in penalties. EvelY person other than a corporation who contravenes any provision of this By-law is of an offence and on conviction is liable for evely day or part thereof upon which such ojjence occurs or continues to a fine of 110t more than $10,000 for a first offence and not more $25,000 for any subsequent conviction, as provided for by Section] 44 (16) of the MuniCipal Act.

157 OR 136 Please stop site alterations immediately and stabilize the site using appropriate erosion and sediment controls to ensure that sediment is not transported off the site. Compliance with this order is required within ten (10) days. Other orders to comply may follow. Non-compliance vvith By-law may result in penalties. Please apply for site alteration permit. Application form has been enclosed. Copies of By-law are available fi-om the Clerk's Department or on-line ( City staff are also available to meet with you to discuss any proposed site alteration activities. Note that submitting a Site Alteration Permit application does not guarantee that a Site Alteration Permit will be issued. The application fee for a site greater than 0.2Ha is $ $2S.00/Ha. Please see enclosed Site Alteration Application. Should you have any questions in the intelim, please contact myself or Teresa Giangregorio at ( ext. 7891) Yours truly, Cary Clark, P.Eng., Manager of Development & Environmental Engineering Enclosed: Site Alteration Application

158 Burlington CITY OF ~ * 7 SITE ALTERATION I TOPSOIL PRESERVATION PERMIT INFORMATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THIS APPLICATION IS AUTHORIZED BY BY-LAW No NAiVIE: ADDRESS: 137 Depending on the type of works you are proposing on your property, you may need a Site Alteration Permit, or a Topsoil Preservation Permit prior to construction to ensure that you, your neighbours andlor the envirollllent are not negatively impacted. Site Alteration and Topsoil Preservation Permits are administered by the Engineering Department to ensure that works on private property v.@ not result in: a) Erosion; b) Blockage of a swale, ditch, watercourse, etc.; c) Siltation in a stann sewer or swale, ditch, watercourse, etc.; d) Contamination of a surface water; e) Flooding or ponding; f) An undue detrimental effect on the natural environment of the area; g) A detrimental effect on the quality or quantity of water in wells; h) Hindering the orderly development of any lands; i) A detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent lots; or j) A loss in agricultural lands in the Rural Planning Area of the City. Please answer the questions below with respect to the proposed works. If you respond "yes" to one or more questions, please contact the Engineering Department (2" Floor, City Hall) since the proposed works likely require a Site Alteration or Topsoil Preservation pennit. Site Alteration and Topsoil Preservation Permits are regulated by the City of Burlington under By-law Non-compliance \vith By-law may result in penalties. Yes No Are you proposing to alter the grade on your property? 0 Are you proposing to install a retaining wall on your property? 0 0 Are you proposing to remove topsoil on a site greater than 0.2 ha (0.5 acres) in area (approximate dimensions of x 100 m)? 0 0 Are you proposing to remove vegetative cover on a site greater than 0.2 hectares (0.5 acres) in area? I 0 0 Are you proposing to alter the grade on a property that is next to a watercourse, Lake Ontario or Burlington Bay? 0 0 Are you proposing to construct a pond in the Rural Planning Area of the City? 0 0 Are you proposing to construct a residence, garage, agricultural building or other structure in the Rural Planning Area oftlle City? 0 0 DATE SIGNATURE OF OvVNERIAPPLICANT Revised: January 23,2008

159 ~n.* 'TY OF.,.. rurlington THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURILNGTON APPLICATION FOR A SITE ALTERATION PERlVIIT OR TOPSOIL REMOVAL PERMIT 138 THIS APPLICATION IS AUTHORIZED BY BY-LAW No PERlvllTNo.: ATTACHMENTS FILENo.: THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY:./ Copies of a Control Plan certified by a Professional Engineer or other qualified person../ The application fee. See Schednle "B" on page 3../ Security in a form and amount acceptable to the Director of Engineering*../ OWl1er's authorization if Applicant is not the Owner../ Phase I, II, and III Environmental Site Assessment reports as required by the Director of Engineering*. * These items, if applicable, may be requested after submission of the application. PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE (In hectares): NAME OF PROPERTY o\vn""er: ADDRESS: CITY, PROVINCE: PHONE: FAX: POSTAL CODE: EMA.IL: CELL: NAME OF AGENT: ADDRESS: CITY, PROVINCE: POSTAL CODE: PHONE: FAX: CELL: CONSULTING ENGINEERS: ADDRESS: CITY, PROVINCE: POSTAL CODE: PHONE: FAX: CELL: CONTRACTOR'S NAl\IIE: ADDRESS: CITY, PROVINCE: PHONE: FAX: POSTAL CODE: CELL: WORK SCHEDULE: START DATE: END DATE: CONSTRUCTION PERIOD: ed: lanuary 23,

160 10.0 DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED WORKS: IF APPLICABLE, DESCRIBE THE COMPOSITION OF FILL BEING DUlItlPEDIPLACED: 12.0 DOES ANY PART OF THE SITE CONTAIN A WATERCOURSE, SHORELINE, FILL OR FLOOD REGULATED AREA, AS ADMINISTERED BY THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY? YES NO DON'T KNOW 13.0 IF YES, HAVE YOU CONFIRMED THIS WITH THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY? YES (please attached correspondence) NO The undersigned hereby applies for a Site Alteration Permit or Topsoil Removal Pennit pursuaut to the provisions of City ofburiiugton By-law and agrees to comply in all aspects with the requirements of By-law The uudersigned hereby grants employees of the City of Burlington pennission to enter the subject land to inspect the proposed work that the pennit applies. Pursuant to the By-law , the undersigned hereby acknowledges that the sole responsibility for the completion of the work undertaken as part of this application rests entirely with the Owner. The undersigned also agrees that the total costs of all works will be entirely the responsibility of the Ovmer. The undersigned certifies to the City that any and all Fill used in completing any Site Alteration contains no contaminants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990,c. E.19. The undersigned herehy forever re1eascs and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City, its employees, representatives, agents and contractors, from and against all claims, demands, damages, causes of action, costs, expenses and other liabilities of any nature, which may arise in the event that the Fill is determined to contain contaminants. DATE SIGNATURE OF mvneriapplicant If an agent is being used, the Owner must also complete the following: I authorize respect to tllis application. being the registered Owner of the subject site(s) hereby to prepare, submit, and act onl11y behalf with DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER Revised: Jalluruy 23,

161 SCHEDULE"B" SITE ALTERATION PERMIT AND TOPSOIL REMOVAL PERMIT FEES The Fee for processing, administration and inspection for a Permit shall be as defined below. SITE ALTERATION 1. Alteration of a site greater than 0.2 ha. 2. Singje residential property (Lot area less than 0.2 ha) 3. Property less than 0.2 ha containing a drainage easement or catchbasin and/or adjacent to a watercourse or shoreline TOPSOIL REMOVAL Permit Fee $ $25.00Iba $80.00 $80.00 $ $ hectare Renewal Fee after Permit has expired $250 $40 $40 $ SECURITY FOR SITE CONTROL MEASURES lill irrevocable Letter of Credit or cash may be reqnired by the Director to cover 100% of the estimated cost to: maintain site controls; stabilize the site and nndertake other works. The Letter of Credit is to be in a form acceptable to the City Treasurer. The Letter of Credit must remain in effect for full duration of the Permit. Any Letter of Credit and its subseqnent renewal fonns shall contain a clause stating that thirty (30) days '\;rittennotice mnst be given to the City prior to its expiry or cancellation. In the event that the City receives notice that a Letter of Credit is expiring and will not be renewed and further or additional securities are not provided forthwith, the City may draw on the current Letter of Credit at the discretion of the Director. The Permit holder agrees that any interest aeeruing on the realized eash seeurity shall belong to the City lmd not to the Permit holder. Personal Information on this form is collected under the authority of The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O c.25 as amended and will be used to process applications and issue permits for site alteratiolls and topsoil. removal. Questions about this collection should be directed to: Senior Enviroumental Engineer, Engineering Department, 426 Braut Street, Burlington, ON, L7R 3Z6, , extension 7576 OFFICE ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES ONLY A. LETTER OF CREDIT AMOUNT: B. PERMIT FEE: RECEIPT NO. C. ENGINEERING APPROVAL: DATE: D. PLANNING APPROVAL: DATE: E. DATE PERMIT ISSUED: F. EXPIRY DATE: Revised: January 23,

162

163 (905) x 7672 (905) cary.clark@burfing/on.ca 141 May 3,2013 Mr. Vince Rossi Burlington Executive Airport 5342 Bell School Line Burlington, ON L7fvl OPl Dear Mr. Rossi: Site Alteration Permit - Order to Comply Pursuant to the "City of Burlington Topsoil Preservation and Site AlteraNon By-faw' (By-law ), please accept this letter and the attached Order to Comply as formal notification that the Burlington Executive Airport is required to have an approved "Site Alteration Permit" in order to continue with any cutting andlor filling operations on the Airport site (5260, 5296, 5300, 5316, 5342 Bell School Line and 5351 Appleby Une). The current dumping and filling operations are required to stop immediately, until such time as a Site Alteration Permit is approved by the City of Burlington. Also enclosed are copies of By-law and the Site Alteration Permit application form. It would be helpful if we could arrange a meeting to discuss the issues ih person. Your cooperation is appreciated and we look forward to meeting with you. Should you have any questions in the interim, please contact me at ( ext 76(2) or Teresa Giangregorio at ( ext7891). Yours truly, Cary Clark, P.Eng. Manager of Development & Environmental Engineering Cc: Councillor Blair Lancaster - City of Burlington Mike Crough - City of Burlington Teresa Giangregorio - City of Burlington Blake Hurley - City of Burlington Paul Bond - Conservation Halton

164 TAB 18

165 142 Planning and Public Works Meeting June 12, 2013 GC = TA = CB = KB = RB RBB = = RC = JD = CD = AE = JF = RG AJ = JK = GK = TL BL = MMW = PS = CS = JT = MGM MZ = Regional Chair Gary Carr Chair and Regional Councillor Tom Adams Vice-Chair and Regional Councillor Colin Best Regional Councillor Keith Bird Mayor of Halton Hills Rick Bormette Mayor of Oakville Rob Burton Regional Councillor Rick Craven Regional Councillor Jack Del1l1ison Regional Councillor Cathy Duddeck Regional Councillor Allan Elgar Regional Councillor Jane Fogal Mayor of Burlington Rick Goldring Regional Councillor Alan Iolmston Regional Councillor Jeff Knoll Mayor of Milton Gordon Krantz Regional Councillor Tony Lambert Regional Councillor Blair Lancaster Regional Councillor Mariarme Meed Ward Regional Councillor Paul Sharman Regional Councillor Clark Somerville Regional Councillor John Taylor This is Exhibit fi mentioned and referred to in the affidavit of 11M II /{J,-P!JYNE Swor me this ~ ~az of ~--.~~.D., 200 A.e?rrimissloner e. Cormnissioner, Legislative and Plarming Services and Corporate Counsel, Mark G. Meneray Commissioner of Halton Region Public Works, Mitch Zanlojc Speaker TA Narrative Any pccuniary interest? I see none. We have a delegation by Ms. Vanessa Warren of the Rural Burlington Greenbelt Coalition; welcome. We look forward to your infonnation. There is a memo and I understand that you already have a copy of the revised memo. Is that correct? Vanessa Warren ITA I Vanessa Warren TA I am sorry, can you repeat that? You already have a copy of the revised memo from our staff, I believe. I do, thank you, yes. Okay. Welcome, we look forward to your information, and go ahead please. '---

166 Speaker Narrative Issue., Councillor Taylor can speak in more detail about the technical aspects of this, and all the different issues. It's obviously a multi-faceted issue; but the whole situation is absolutely bizarre. It reminds me of a banana republic; there is no proper clarity of jurisdiction \~ith regard to site plan alteration. Who is responsible? The Federal government says they are, but, really, it should be the Municipal. I mean, there is no clarity, absolutely no clarity. One of the pieces of the resolution that was passed on Monday night at Burlington City Council was to direct the Mayor to work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to lobby the Federallvfinister of Transportation, and other relevant Ministries, to develop a process to allow Municipalities to have inpnt on Airpark land-filling operations and expansion plans. Congratulations to Clark Somerville; he is our new third Vice President for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and thank you very much for being here today. CS RG Anytime! The jurisdictional issue is absolutely crucial. On Monday moming Councillor Lancaster and I had the opportunity for a phone call with Lisa Raitt. She asked us what's our view on the jurisdictional issues. Obviously, the Municipality should deal with everything resulting on the actual site, except for the aviation issues. The aviation, or aeronautical, issues are clearly Federal, but, as far as buildings and changing grading and drainage, that's all the Mlmicipality. Lisa Raitt promised she was going to dig into it; she was going to talk to the Minister of Transportation for pelmission to talk to people, including Greg Cross at the Ministry of Transportation, and she will get back to us in due course. When you go out to the residential properties there - Councillor Taylor mentioned it - there are 30-foot berms. 111ere is one particular properly, you have 30-foot berms on three particular sides. This whole progression has been going on for 5, 5Yz years. It's bizarre; it's absolutely bizarre. We have to do whatever Vie can to deal with this in the most effective way we can, and we have to be as aggressive as we can, in my belief, with the current owner of the Burlington Executive AirpOli. The best question that I heard from my colleagues on Monday evening at our Council meeting was from Councillor Craven, who asked the lavvyer for the Airport "why is your client an avrful neighbour?" That was the bottom line; and, obviously, there was a great non-answer. But that's the issue. The Airpark has not been good neighbours. We don't have any jurisdiction to really hanllller them in the appropriate way; so we've got to figure out whatever way we can. I appreciate all the eftort of Vanessa and her group, and all the delegations we had Monday night at Council, and we're going to get at this issue real hard. I

167 TAB 19

168 144 This is Exhibit "G" referred to in the Affidavit of Denise C. Sebastian sworn before me, this 25 th day of July, A taking Affidavits

169 .+. Transport Canada Transports Canada 145 TP 312E 18l1li ill muiirti (revised 03/2005) Air Navigation System Requirements Branch AERODROME STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED PRACTICES 4th Edition March 1993 Canada

170 146 TP312E Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abbreviations and Symbols, Manuals... (vii) Manuals...,..., (viii) FOREWORD,... (ix) CHAPTER 1 GENERAL 1.1 DEFINITIONS APPLICABILITY REFERANCE CODE CHAPTER 2 AERODROME DATA 2.1 GENERAL Units of Measurement GEOGRAPHIC DATA Aerodrome Reference Point Geometric Centre Runway Threshold Coordinates Aerodrome and Runway Elevations Aerodrome Magnetic Variation..., Aerodrome Reference Temperature." Electronic Navigation Aids AERODROME DIMENSIONS AND RElATED INFORMATION General Declared Distances (not allocated) ICAO 'Type A" Obstacle charts STRENGTH OF PAVEMENTS General ACN PCN Method of Reporting CONDITION OF THE MOVEMENT AREA AND RELATED FACILITIES General Runway Surface Condition Reporting.. 2; Rescue and Fire Fighting..., Page Strength of Runways Surface of Runways Runway Shoulders Runway Strips Runway End Safety Areas CLEARWAYS Location of Clearways Length of Cleal\vays Wid!h of Clearways ,4 Slopes on Clearways Objects on Clearways STOPWAYS i Width of Stopways Slopes on S!opways Strength of Slopways Surface of S!opways Objects on Siopways TAXIWAYS General Slopes on Taxiways..., ,4.3 Strength of Taxiways Surface of Taxiways Rapid Exit Taxiways..., Taxiways on Bridges Taxiway Shoulders... 3 i Taxiway Strips HOLDING BAYS, TAXI HOLDING POSITIONS, AND ROAD HOLDING POSITIONS Holding Bays Taxi Holding Positions Road Holding Positions APRONS General Size of Aprons Strength of Aprons SlopesonAprons S.5 Clearance Distances on Aprons and Aircraft Stands S.6 Aircraft Stand Taxilane Minimum Clearance Distances Isolated Aircraft Parking Position CHAPTER 3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 RUNWAyS General Slopes on Rumvays...'" 3 3 (iii) CHAPTER 4 OBSTACLE RESTRICTION AND REMOVAL 4.1 OBSTACLE LIMITATION SURFACES Outer Surface Take Off/Approach Surface Transport Canada

171 147 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices TP312E Page Page Transitional Surface OBSTACLE LIMITATION REQUIREMENTS General Non-instrument Runways Non-precision Approach Runways Precision Approach Runways OTHER OBJECTS General CHAPTER 5 VISUAL AIDS FOR NAVIGATION 5.1 INDICATORS AND SIGNALLING DEVICES." Wind Direction Indicators MARKINGS General Runway Designation Markings Runway Centre Une Marking Threshold Marking transverse stripe arrows...,... 5~ Aiming Point Marking Touchdown Zone Marking Runway Side Stnpe Marking Taxiway Centreline Marking Taxi-holding Posilion Marking Taxiway Intersection Marking Aircraft Stand Taxilane Marking Aifcraft Stand Markings Apron Safety Lines... '" Apron Passenger Path Lines Road-holding Position Marking Information Marking LIGHTS General light fixtures and supporting structures light intensity and control..., Emergency Lighting Aerodrome beacon (not allocated) Approach Lighting System simple approach lighting system precision approach Category I lighting system precision approach category 1/ and III lighting sysem Visual Approach Slope Indicator Systems PAPI and APAPI obstacle protection surface: Aerodrome Flight Manoeuvring Area Hazard Beacons Runway Lead-in Lighting Systems '" Runway Identification Lights (RILS)., Runway Edge Lights Runway Threshold and Wing Bar Lights Runway End Lights Runway Centre Une Lights Runway Touchdown Zone Ughts Slopway Lights Taxiway Centre Line Lights taxiway centre line lights on taxiways taxiway centre line lights on rapid exit taxiways taxiway centre line fights on other exit faxiways......,... 5~5i - taxiway centre!ine lights on runways Taxiway Edge Lights Stop Bars Taxiway Intersection Ughts Runway Guard Lights Apron Floodlighting Visual Docking Guidance System azimuth guidance unit ~57 - stopping posltion indicator Aircraft Stand Manoeuvring Guidance Lights Road-Holding Position Ught SIGNS General Mandatory Instruction Signs Information Signs Mandatory Frequency/Aerodrome Traffic Frequency Signs Aerodrome Identification Sign Aircraft Stand Identification Signs A.7 Road-Hold Position Signs MARKERS General Unpaved Runway Edge Markers Stopway Edge Markers Edge Markers for Snow-Covered Runways Taxiway Edge Markers Taxiway Centre Line Markers Unpaved Taxiway Edge Markers Boundary Markers Transport Canada (iv)

172 148 TP312E Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices Page CHAPTER 6 VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING OBSTACLES 6.1 OBJECTS TO BE MARKED ANDIOR LIGHTED Objects on Movement Areas... 6-i Objects on Runway Strips i OUier Objects i 6.2 MARKING OF OBJECTS :2. i Fixed Objects Mobile Objects LIGHTING OF OBJECTS Fixed Objects Mobile Objects CHAPTER 7 VISUAL AIDS FOR DENOTING RESTRICTED USE AREAS 7.1 CLOSED RUNWAYS AND TAXIWAYS OR PORTIONS THEREOF Closed Markings Lighting NON LOAD-BEARING SURFACES Taxi Side Stripe Marking PRE THRESHOLD AREAS i Chevron Marking UNSERVICEABLE AREAS i Unserviceability Markers Unserviceability Ughts CHAPTER 8 EQUIPMENT INSTALLATIONS AND OPERATIONS 8.1 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS Secondary Power Supply General Visual Aids Circuit Design Standby Power Unit Operation (not allocated) 8.3 MONITORING Visual Aids SECURITY Fencing Security Lighting Page 8.5 OPERATlON AND CONTROL OF AERODROME LIGHTING SYSTEMS General Aircraft Control of Aerodrome Ughting (ARCAl) SITlNG AND CONSTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATIONS ON OPERATIONAl AREAS..... :.: General AERODROME VEHICLE OPERATION General SURFACE MOVEMENT GUIDANCE AND CONTROL SYSTEMS General Visual Aids Non-visual Aids SIMULTANEOUS INTERSECTING RUNWAY OPERATIONS (SIRO) General CHAPTER 9 EMERGENCY AND OTHER SERVICES 9.1 AERODROME EMERGENCY PLANNING Emergency Response Plan Emergency Operations and Command Post Aerodrome Emergency Exercise... 9 fi2 9.2 (not allocated) 9.3 DISABLED AIRCRAFT REMOVAL Disabled Aircraft Removal Plan Removal of Disabled Aircraft from Operational Areas MAINTENANCE General Pavements Visual Aids WILDLIFE REDUCTION HAZARD General APRON MANAGEMENT SERVICE General GROUND SERVICING OF AIRCRAFT General (v) Transport Canada

173 149 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices TP312E Page Page APPENDIX A AERONAUTICAL GROUND LIGHT AND SURFACE MARKING COLOURS A.1 (to be issued at a later date)... A-1 APPENDIX B AERONAUTICAL GROUND LIGHT CHARACTERISTICS B.1 APPROACH AND RUNWAYLIGHTS Approach Centre Line Lights and Crossbars Approacg Side Row Lights B.1.3 Threshold Lights... 8-S Wing Bar lights Touchdown Zone lights RunwayCenlre line Lights (SO m spacing) B.1.7 Runway Centre line lights (15m spacing) Runway Centre line Lights (7.5 m spacing)... B-8 B.1.9 Runway End lights B Runway Edge Light (45 m runway width)... B-lO B.1.11 Runway Edge Lights (60 m runway width) B.1.12 Common Requirements for approach and Runway Lights B-12 B.2 TAXIWAYUGHTS... B-14 B.2.1 Taxiway Centre Line Lights (15 m spacing) and Stop Bar Lights in Straight Sections Intended For Use in RVR Conditions Less Than a Value of 1400 It (large offsets)..., B Taxiway Centre Line Lights (15 m spacing) and Stop Bar Lights in Straight Sections Intended For Use in RVR Condilions Less Than a Value of 1400 fl... B-15 B.2.3 Taxiway Cenlre Line Lights (7.5 m spacing) and Slop Bar Lights in Curved Sections Intended For Use in RVR Conditions Less Than a Value of 1400ft... B-16 B.2.4 Taxiway Centre line Lights (30 m. 60 m spacing) and Stop Bar Lights In Straighl Sections Intended For Use in RVR Conditionsfof1400 fl or greater B-17 B.2.5 Taxiway Centre Line Lighis (30 m. 60 m spacing) and Stop Bar Lights in Curved Sections Intended For Use in RVR Conditionsfof1400 it or greater....,... "., B.2.6 Runway Guard lights (configuration A)... B-19 B.2.7 Collective Requirements for Taxiway Lights B VISUAL APPROACH SLOPE INDICATOR SYSTEMS... B-21 B.3.1 PAPI and APAPI... B-21 APPENDIX C AIRSIDE GUIDANCE SIGN DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS C.l GENERAL REQUIREMENTS... C-l C.1.1 C.1.2 C.1.3 Sign Face and Inscription Dimensions... "... C~ 1 Sign Character Size and Spacing... C-l Sign Construction... C-S C.2 RETROREFLECTIVE SIGNS... C-7 C.2.1 General... C-7 C.3 ILLUMINATED SIGNS... C-7 C.S.1 General... C-7 C.3.2 Internally Illuminated Signs... C-7 C.S.3 Fibreoptic Signs C-8 ATTACHMENTS TransporJ Canada (vi)

174 150 TP312E Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices ABBREVIATIONS and SYMBOLS (used in Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices) Abbreviations AAE AAS ACN ALA APAPI aprx ARCAl ARP ASDA ATF ATS C CAT I CAT II CAT III CBR cd CIE cm DME E EWH FAA FOD ft GNSS GPS GS HAA HIAl ICAO IFR IlS IMC JBI K kg kmlh km kt l LDA m M MALSR max MF Above aerodrome elevation Airport Advisory Service Aircraft c!assmcation number Aircraft loading rating Abbreviated precision approach path indicator Approximately Aircraft radio control of aerodrome fighting aerodrome reference point Accelerate stop distance available Aerodrome traffic frequency Air traffic services Degrees Celsius Category I Category II Category III California bearing ratio Candela Commission Intemationale de!'eciairage Centimetre Distance measuring equipment East Eye to wheel height Federal Aviation Administration (USA) Foriegn object damage Foot Global Navigation Satellite System Global Positioning System Glideslope Height above aerocirome High intensity approach lighting International Civif Aviation Organization Instrument flight rules Instrument landing system Instrument meteorological conditions James Brake Index Degree Kelvin. Kilogram Kilometre per hour Kilometre Knot litre landing distance available Metre Magnetic Medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights Maximum Mandatory frequency Abbreviations min Minimum MLS Microwave!ancfing system om Millimetre MN Meganewton MPa Megapascal MSL Above mean sea level N North NM Nautical mile NOTAM Notices to airmen IV Not usable OCNH Obstacle clearance altitudelheight ODALS Omni-direc!ional lighting system OFZ Obstac!e free zone OlS Obstacle limitation surface PAPI Precision approach path indicator PCN Pavement classification number PlR Pavement load rating RCR Runway condition report RESA Runway end safety area RILS Runway identification fights RSC Runway surface condition RVR Runway visual range S South sees Seconds SIRO Simultaneous intersecting runway operations T True TC Transport Canada IDZ T ovchdown zone IDZE Touchdown zone elevation ID2L Touchdown zone fighting TODA Take-off distance available TORA Take-off run available TP Transport Canada publication VFR Visual flight rules VMC Visual meteorological conditions VOR Very high frequency omnidirectional range W West Symbols, Degrees > Greater than < less than Minus Minute of arc % Percentage ± Plus or minus + Plus Seconds of arc 41hEciJio1l Malch at, less (vii) Transport Canada

175 152 TP312E Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices Transport Canada (Aviation) Manuals TP 382 Standard Obstruction Markings TP Canadian Class 1 NOT AM Procedures TP Land Use in the Vicinity 01 Airports TP Manual 01 All Weather Operations TP Procedures for the Certification of Aerodromes as Airports The Transport Canada Aviation documents may be obtained from: Transport Canada (AANDH) Aeronautical Information Services Ottawa, Ontario K1AON8 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) Note. Specify whether you require the English (E) or French(F) volume. Transport Canada (Airports) Manuals TP Airport Emergency Planning Manual TP TP 779 TP 2633 Airport Safety Programs Manual Operations and Maintenance Manual for Airport Pavements Manual of Airport Traffic Directives for the Operation of Vehicles on Airport Movement Areas The above Transport Canada Airports n:anlla!s may be obtained from: Transport Canada (AKPRS) Safety and Emergency Planning Ottawa, Ontario K1AON8 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) TP659 - Airports Winter Surface Maintenance Manual The above Transport Canada Airports manual may be obtained from: Transport Canada (AKPEM) Safety and T echoical Services Ottawa, Ontario K1AON8 Tel: (613) Fax: (613) (ix) Transport Canada

176 TAB 20

177 This is Exhibit "FFF" referred to in the Affidavit ofvincenzo Rossi sworn before me, at the City of Toronto, this 25 th day of July,

178 154 Engineering Department TO: Mayor and Members of Development & Infrastructure Committee SUBJECT: Burlington Executive Airport Update #2 Discussion: The following is a summary of the issues that have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed since the previous update to Council provided on May 15,2013. Consent Application At present, the consen! application remains "on hold". Planning staff have not provided formal comments on the consent application to the Land Division Commiitee. Site Alteration By-law and Permit The Airport owner is not willing to acquire a Site Alteration Permit, however he has agreed to provide select informalion that would typically be included in an application for a Site Alteration Permit. To date, the owner has provided the following: 52 Soil Test reports Site Plan drawing dated April 2012 Existing & proposed grading plans Storm drainage plans Runway & Taxiway plans Cross Section plans The soil test reports are being reviewed by an environmental consultant hired by the City (see below in "Environmental Matters" section).

179 155 The City has also requested any additional soil lest reports that are in the owners possession from the period prior to I<ing's involvement. Transport Canada Staff Communication with Transport Canada Speciflc to Aimark Expansion and Fill Staff continue to have discussions with Greg Cross from Transport Canada regarding the airpark, including discussions on previous Transpoli Canada involvement in assessing the filling operations and possible airpark expansion. In June, staff wrote directly to Mr. Cross with a series of specific questions on the airpark. These questions were provided in the previous staff update to Committee but are provided again below, along with Mr. Cross's responses to those questions. 1. Is there a functional or regulatory difference between "airport" and "aerodrome" as defined by Transport Canada? Based on our previous conversation I am of the understanding that the levels of identification are: a) local airports/aerodromes; b) registered airports/aerodromes; c) certified airportsiaerodromes; and, d) for lack of a belter term, the highest level of airports (such as Pearson) which I don't believe I noted a nameicategory for. However, it has been noted thai ihe Burlington Airpark is now calling itself the "Burlington Executive Airport" and it has been asked if this name change signifies anything from a legislative or regulatory perspective. Transport Canada Response All surfaces used for the purpose of landing and departing aircraft are "aerodromes". An aerodrome which holds a certificate is an "airport" based on regulatory definition. As tile term airport is widely used and accepted in Ihe aviation industry Transport Canada does not preclude it from being used by an aerodrome except where it would not be factual to indicate it as such by regulation, such as in the aviation publications. Airports are required to comply with all Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) as pertain to them under CARs Part III, particularly Sub-Part 302 and the applicable standards found in publication TP312, Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices. Aerodromes are covered by CARs Part Ill, particularly Sub-Part 301, but there are no associated standards that apply. The link io the CARs is as follows: hltp:/lwww.tc.qc.ca/eng!civiiaviationiregserv/cars!pari3-menu-156. him 2. Is there any additional information available from Transport Canada. aside from the word document vou provided, which outlines Transport Canada's position with respect to the City's ability to enforce its own by-laws?

180 156 One of the key issues regarding the Burlington Airpark is the filling exercise currently underway. Based on our phone conversation, I take it Transport Canada's position is that local authorities (Le. City and MOE) may choose to impose standards and permitting processes regarding fill, if it does not impair the core aeronautic function. You mentioned something along the lines of fill that contained magnetic material may fall under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada as this could impair aeronautical activities. However, questions remain regarding other by-laws (such as noise, zoning, etc.) and regulationsfstandards (grading and drainage, dust, fuelling stations, de-icing operations, etc.). City staff are seeking clarity on Transport Canada's position with respect to local by-laws and activities at the privately owned airpark lands. Transport Canada Response The federal government, through the Aeronautics Act, has sole jurisdiction over aeronautical matters, which includes aerodromes and all related buildings or equipment at aerodromes used for aviation purposes. The federal government's exclusive mandate extends only to matters integral to aeronautics. Therefore, the laws of other jurisdictions may still apply. Aerodrome operators need to identify and comply with all applicable legislation. Transport Canada encourages aerodrome operators to be aware of other jurisdictions, which might include other federal or provincial legislation or municipal by-laws, where the elements in question are not integral to the operation of the aerodrome. The question of the application of environmental laws is not a question that Transport Canada can determine. Transport Canada's best advice when there are questions or issues in matters other than Aeronautics, is that all parties should seek legal counsel. The example cited was intended to provide clarity where matters may overlap. The issue of fill being used to build a runway, apron, hangar area etc. is integral to aviation. Where the quality of fill has properties that might affect aviation then the quality of fill is integral to aviation. Otherwise, the quality of fill being brought onto a site is not regulated under the Aeronautics Act. and where other jurisdictions have authority they may wish to exercise that authority. As an addiiional example, local noise by-laws may not be applied to aircraft as the operation of aircraft is integral to aviation and thus covered by the Aeronautics Act. 3. Does Transport Canada have a position on the current filling activities at the airpark and the proposed expansion plans of the airpark? Specifically, does Transport Canada take the position that the current filling operations are related to aeronautics? If the airpark wishes to expand its facilities (Le. lengthen runway, increase air traffic, attract larger planesfjets, build new lemninal and hangars, etc.) does Transport Canada support these plans? Transport Canada Response The construction of the aerodrome for the purpose of aeronautics is conducted at the discretion of the operator of the aerodrome. Transport Canada does not regulate

181 157 aerodromes to the extent that we determine runway lengths and supporting infrastructure for a particular aerodrome. It is incumbent upon the users of the aerodrome, flight crews and air operators, to ensure that the aerodrome meets the needs for their aircraft in terms of the aerodrome and its facilities as provided by the aerodrome operator. 4. Can the process of certification be explained in more detail or is there clear documentation of how this orocess works that can be provided? You mentioned that to become certified an aerodrome would have to follow TP Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices. The airpark has stated that it has no intention of becoming certified, but City staff seek clarity on this process anyway to understand when/how it would happen and whether there is any opportunity in that process for municipal input. Staff would like to know exactly how an aerodrome becomes certified and what certification means from a regulatory and monitoring perspective (i.e. does certification mean a greater involvement and monitoring by Transport Canada?) Transport Canada Response Should an aerodrome wish to become certified they would make application to Transport Canada, pay all applicable fees and submit any supporting documentation that demonstrates they meet all applicable regulations and standards. Transpoli Canada may conduct an inspection of the facility and/or its processes to verify compliance Prior to issuing the certificate. 5. Can Transport Canada provide clarity on the circumstances that Transport Canada would require certification? In our conversation you outlined three scenarios that Transport Canada would require certification under. These are: a) Aerodrome has regular passenger service - what is the criteria that determines "regular passenger service"? Does this pertain to a class or classes of aircraft? Length of runway? Number and distance of flights? b) Aerodrome is within a "built up area" - you mentioned that typically the "built up area" must be present on three sides of the airpark to fall within this category. Further to this, what is the definition of "built up area"? Is there a certain density or land use category used to make this determination? Does the number of nearby residences facior into this? Is consideration given to private services (i.e. local wells)? c) Deemed to be necessary in the public interest by the Minister - Is there a mechanism by which a municipality or resident can request a review of the airpark under this scenario? Who would be the appropriate contact to explore this avenue? An example you gave was the level of flight service, but are there any other criteria used (i.e..comment above regarding number of nearby residences, private wells, etc.)?

182 158 Transport Canada Resoonse There are 3 circumstances that an aerodrome may become or be required to be certified as per CAR : (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subpart applies in respect of (a) an aerodrome that is located within the built-up area of a city or town; (b) a land aerodrome that is used by an air operator for the purpose of a scheduled service for the transport of passengers; and (c) any other aerodrome, other than an aerodrome referred to in subsection (2), in respect of which the Minister is of the opinion that meeting the requirements necessary for the issuance of an airport certificate would. be in the public interest and would further the safe operation of the aerodrome. Scheduled service for the transport of passengers would be a situation where an air operator, cerlified by Transport Canada, is operating a passenger service under their air operator certificate and posting a schedule for that service. There is no specific definition for "built-up area". As a rule we have generally considered that to be the case when development has taken place on three sides of an aerodrome but the final determination is at the discretion of Transport Canada. Densities, land use etc. may enter onto the determination but there are no specific criteria for this. Certification in the public interest would normally occur where Transport Canada is aware of activity at an aerodrome and whereby it was deemed by the Minister that certification would enhance the safe operation of that aerodrome. This would be based on the history of the aerodrome and/or its level or type of activity. This would be determined by Transport Canada, as the Ministers representative, at its discretion. 6. Is Transport Canada willing to conduct an inspectionireview of the current airpark filling operations and construction activities? YOLI mentioned that there typically is no inspection of registered aerodromes by Transport Canada. Is it possible for the Municipality or a resident to request Transport Canada to inspect the airpark? Can Transport Canada require the submission of expansion plans for review? Transport Canada Response Transport Canada is aware of the activity taking place at the Burlington Executive Airport. While Transport Canada's policy does not subject a registered aerodrome to a routine inspection program, Transport Canada is not aware of any violations to the aviation regulations at the subject site. Transport Canada may inspect the airport as its discretion. Transport Canada may review a submission from an airport operator but only to verify compliance with acts, regulations and standards for which it has authority.

183 159 Staff Communication with Transport Canada regarding 2009 Correspondence Reoarding Fill Operation In addition to the above, staff communicated again with Mr. Cross at the end of June to inquire about a specific piece of correspondence that Mr. Cross authored to a resident in The text of the from Mr. Cross seemed to suggest that at one point, Transport Canada did have an opinion on the filling operation at the airpark and were not supportive of it in relation to aeronautics. Mr. Cross provided a response to ou!lining the context of his correspondence and responded to staff questions. Excerpts from this exchange are provided below. from Greg Cross at Transport Canada to Mike Crough at City of Burlington - Sent on June 26, 2013 There is no contradiction in position. You will note that there is no reference in Ihis correspondence that would imply Transport Canada's consent or objection from a regulatorv standpoint. The meeting in question was one I was requested to attend 10 achieve a voluntary and mutual solution to the problems being faced by a private citizen neighbouring all. the aerodrome property. Please understand the context in whic/j the meeling was held. Also, at the time, we were being asked to provide information to the Minister's office such that they could respond to a complaint from that private citizen. I was providing information to my supervisors and communications personnel to assist them in drafting the response. This is normal in our course of business. There would have been no reason 10 include the City in any of this correspondence. Transport Canada does not routinely copy or share correspondence witll third parties. I believe that the citizen in question received a response from the Minister's office. There are no folmal reports as a result of the referenced meeting as there are no regulatory matters to be reported upon: The meeting, in fact, was not at the aerodrome and I do not recall visiting the site in any official capacity in the years subsequent to this discussion.. Access to documentation and correspondence that any outside palty wishes to receive would be subject to the Access to Information and Privacy Act. From a regulatoly standpoint, all of tile recent information wllich I /Jave provided remains valid and accurate. We maintain open and transparent dialogue on regulatory matters with both the aerodrome operator and a/her concerned parties.

184 160 to Greg Cross at Transport Canada from Mike Crough at City of Burlington - Sent June 25, 2013 Hello Greg, I am folvvarding an that has been provided to me regarding tile Burlington Airpark Tllis looks 10 be a cut and paste from a larger emaivcorrespondence piece. It is significant because the wording in this suggests that at one time, Transport Canada did have a position on the current fill work occurring on the airpark lands, which essentially contradicts the position you have recently provided me and members of the public through correspondence. Please read the emah below and provide a response to the following questionslrequests: 1. The City requires an explanation on the circumstances of this and site visit, including: records or informalion on the meeting with Mr. Rossi and Mr, Farrow (i.e. how did it come about? minutes or notes taken?) a record of your assessment of the activities at the time copies of communications with the public on fhis issue before and after this was sent to Ms Sheldon copies of responses from airpark representatives a reason as to why the City was never included in this correspondence or provided the same level of information (if we did receive something, I don't have it in my file, and therefore would be appreciative of receiving it again). 2. TIle City also requires a copy of tile direct or report that is referred to below. You mention it is being "sent up the line". It is imperative tllat we know what Ilappened with this piece of communication (i.e. Was it senl? In wllat form? To whom? Wilere any responses received? e/c.). 3. The City must be also be provided with copies of any reports or formal correspondence from Transport Canada regarding the Burlington Ai/park particularly Witfl respect to the filling operations and works discussed below. 4. Was there any follow up to this coitespondence? Is there a record of additional site visits, direct communications with the Burlington Airpark? Responses received from Airpark reps? Any enforcement activity? --- Original Message ---- From: Cross, Greg To: Barbara I. Sheldon Sent: Wednesday, December 09, :33 AM Subject: CZBA - Burlington Airpark Hi Barbara, Here is the lexl of a report I sent up the line this morning. I believe it is going to basically be sent in tact to Minister Baird's office. I suspect they will also copy

185 161 Minister Raiit on it as well. It may filter back down to you from that side. I hope that Vince and company follow through. If not we will be on their case again. Keep me up to date on what happens down there. Greg. I met yesterday moming, Tuesday December 8, with the owner of the Burlington Airpark aerodrome, Mr. Vince Rossi, and his representative Mr. Milt Farrow. A heavy equipment contractor was also present. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the ectivity taking place on the aerodrome and its direct impact on the neighbouring resident, Ms. Barbara Sheldon. I have met with Ms. Sheldon briefly on a couple of occasions during the past month and have witnessed the activity and issues first hand. Ultimately, I was able to convince the aerodrome operator that activity of this nature had a significant negative impact on a neighbour and Gould 110t be justified as part of any direct and immediate action required in the interest of aviation. I indicated that Transport Canada could not support this activity. The issue was that large berms of soil were being place along the property lot lines, spilling over the lines onto the neighbour's property, upsetting natural drainage and creating unsightly walls of dirt and weeds for the resident. I received a commitment from the operator to have the berms moved away from the property fine, shape them so that they ultimately can be maintained using tractors, seed them wilh grass to control erosion and provide better aesthetics, and use swales where necessary 10 conirol and contain water run-off and drainage. This work was to commence as soon as the ground is frozen for the existing berm, be on-going for the berm currently under construction, and be completed by spring of next year subject to weather conditions. / detailed the conversations of the meeting in an to tile aerodrome operator and his representative. They acknowledged Ihe and their commitment to follow through. In fact, a subsequent indicates tllat work may commence on the existing berm as early as this week. I have conveyed this to Ms. She/don and she seems pleased, but cautious, that the matter will be resolved. Conservation Halton On June 26, 2013 Conservation Halton served the airport owner and King with a 'Violation Notice". This notice identifies an alleged violation of Ontario Regulation 162/06, related to placement and grading of fill within a regulated limit in the vicinity of the access road crossing. Their concern is the impact that the fill could have on drainage both upstream and in the vicinity of the alleged violation location.

186 162 Ministry of Environment City staff have me! on 2 occasions with MOE slaff. The first meeting was May 29, The second meeting was July 4, Both meetings were for the purpose of continued communication and coordination of issues between both parties. Environment Canada On June 3, 2013 an enforcement officer from Environment Canada visiled the Airport site for the purpose of carrying out an inspection under the jurisdiction of the Federal Fisheries Act, Section 36(3), which stales: "no person shall deposit or permit the deposit of a deleterious substance of any type in water frequented by fish or in any place under any conditions where the deleterious substance or any other deleterious substance that results from the deposit of the deleterious substance may enter any such water." The enforcement officer found no violation related to Section 36(3). Halton Region On June 19, 2013 Halton Regional Council unanimously passed the following: Memorandum from the Commissioner of Public Works re: Burlington Executive Airport Fill Placement - Appleby Line (Regional Road 20), City of Burlington RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT slaff be directed to present a by-law to immediately suspend and close access to Appleby Line (Regional Road 20) from the most southerly access of the Burlington Air Park for Council's adoption at the Regional Council meeting of June 19, THAT staff be directed to present a report to address managing and mitigating site alteration and fill operations, along with potential health impacts associated with fill placement. 3. THAT the memoranda from the Commissioner of Public Works included in the Miscellaneous Infonnation section of the agenda and distributed at the meeting be received for information. A further coordination meeting is scheduled for July 12, 2013 between City senior staff and Halton Region senior staff (Mitch Zamojc and Mark Meneray).

187 163 Legal Strategy: Following endorsement at Ciiy Council on July 2, 2013, a media release was issued by the City on July 4, 2013 announcing the hiring of Toronto lawyer Ian Blue. The release also included an agreed-upon statement from Mr. Blue and Mr. Grenier, the lawyer representing the Burlington Executive Airport regarding the outcome of their meeting on July 3, "Mr. Blue and Mr. Grenier clearly slated their respective legal positions on the applicability of the cily's site alteration bylaw to the airport but agreed to resene that legal issue until they and representatives of the CITY and the airport can meet to discuss a possible agreement to address the concerns raised by tile cily about best management practices for fill at the airport. If an agreement cannot be reaciled wiinn a reasonable time, tile legal issue will be revisited. n Environmental Matters: The City has hired Terrapex Environmental Ud. to review the soil test reports submitted by the Airport. Their review is underway. Communication Matters: Meetings witli residents and airpark representatives: June 21, Staff Site Visit to Airpark Staff from the Development & Infrastructure Division conducted a site visit with airpark representatives on Friday June 21,2013. The purpose of this visit was for staff to view the filling operations on the airpark lands first hand. A tour of the site was provided by airpark representatives, stopping at a number of locations throughout the property to view areas of fill, runway and taxiway work, drainage work (including catchbasins, swales, etc.), entrances, roadways and haulage routes. June 24, Neiahbourhood Meeting at Capstone Farm This meeting was organized by the General Manager of Development & Infrastructure to facilitate discussion between the City, residents and airpark representatives. Discussion occurred on a range of issues, but mostly focused on the filling operation and concerns related to it. Residents expressed concerns on the amount of fill, the potential for contamination, flooding, dust and debris, noise, and visual impacts. Several requests were made to Mr. Rossi for environmental monitoring & testing, as well as modifications to the present fill locations. The owner's reply was that all matters discussed would be considered. Notes are being prepared which summarize the discussions.

188 164 It was also discussed that additional meetings should occur to allow further discussion, issue identification and information sharing. The next meeting is to be scheduled in 6-8 weeks (mid to late August). Julv 2, Staff Site Visit to Sheldon and Cousins Properties The Ward Councillor and Staff from Development & Infrastructure attended a visit to the Sheldon and Cousins properties (5199, 5265 & 5375 Appleby Line), as arranged by the residents. The purpose of this meeting was to observe impacts from the airpark filling operations on these properties, including flooding, erosion, dead or dying trees, noise, dust, etc. Communication with Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing On July 2, 2013 Mayor Goldring sent a letter to the Honourable Linda Jeffery, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, expressing the City's concem over the issues at the Burlington Executive Airport and also requesting assistance in lobbying the Federal Ministry of Transportation to develop a process to allow municipalities to have input on airpark land filling operations and expansion plans through the use of permit and site plan applications. Conclusion: This report has been provided for information. Respectfully submitted, j :! Cary Clark, P.Eng. Manager of Development & Environmental Engineering Scott Stewart, GET. General Manager Development & Infrastructure Division

189 165 Notifications; Name I Mailing or Address Ray Guther - Conservation Halton Alison Rodrigues - MOE Halton Mitch Zamojc - Halton Region Mark Meneray - Halton Region Ron Glenn - Halton Region rguther(c1lhrca.on.ca alison.rodrigues(c1lontario.ca mitch.zamoic(c1lhalion.ca mark.meneray(c1lhalton.ca ron. glenn(c1lhalton. ca

190 TAB 21

191 166 This is Exhibit "QQQ" referred to in the Affidavit ofvinccnzo Rossi sworn before me, at the City of Toronto, this 25 0 \ day of July, 2013 J/,.l..#~b-~. C omme.- i1 or t mg a avlts I.,'",~!",,;,

192 CITY OF, J;( ~» Burlington , Ext July 12, 2013 VIA Tina Dufresne, District Manager Ministry of the Environment Halton-Peel District, Central Region 4145 North Service Road, Suite 300 Burlington, ON L7L 6A3 Dear Ms. Dufresne and Ms. Goyette: Dolly Goyette, Regional Director Central Region, Ministry of Environment Place Nouveau 5775 Yonge Street, Floor 8 North York, ON M2M 4J1 dolly.goyette@ontario.ca Re: Burlington Executive Airpark Imported Fill Quality, Review of Environmental Repolis As you are aware, we have had an issue with fill being brought into the above captioned site. The owner has supplied us with documents for review, from reports to loose laboratory certificates of analysis. The City, in tum, has hired Terrapex Environmental Ltd. 10 review this data which they have completed against Ministry Table '1 and Table 2 Site Condition Standards. The Airpark is no! in compliance with the regulations made pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act, specifically OReg and OReg I have attached the report for your immediate review. From the information we have, you will note they are not in compliance with your regulations. We insist that you take immediate steps to order them into compliance including issuing an immediate 'stop work order' on existing filling activities. Further, out of all abundance of caution, for the protection of the health of the residents, we would expect the MOE to exercise its authority to order testing on the groundwater and wells in the vicinity of the park, and any other testing you deem appropriate to provide answers to other potential off-site impacts. Can you confirm if you have a record of 'Site Conditions' in your registry for this location? We will be presenting the results to our Council Monday evening here at City Hall at 6:30pm. Can I ask that your staff be in attendance to answer questions on your actions as this will also help with the communications to the residents who will want to hear how you intend to force the owner into compliance and manage the potential safety issues arising from what amounts to operating an unlicensed landfill site. 426 Brant Street P.O. Box 5013 Burlington Ontario' l7r 3Z6

193 168 Please confirm who_ will be attending our Council meeting. L ---'\,-,;,..--- Your31ery truly -~. )1c:ad _ ~'ott Stewart,C.E.T., General Manager Development and Infrastructure Division cc: Alison Rodrigues, Issues/Project Co-ordinator, Halton-Peel District Alison.rodrigues@ontario.ca Norm Rankin, Legal Services Branch Counsel, Central Region norm.rankin@ontario.ca Ian Blue, Solicitor iblue@g ardiner-roberts.com Jeff Fielding, City Manager Blake Hurley, Legal Services Department Glen Grenier, Barrister & Solicitor

194 ~ Burlington , Ext July 12, 2013 VIA Ray Gulher Manager, Watershed Services 2596 Britannia Road West Burlington, ON L7P OG3 Nathan Murray Watershed Enforcement Officer 2596 Britannia Road West Burlington, ON L7P OG3 Dear Sirs: Re: Burlington Executive Airpark Imported Filt Quality, Review of Environmental Reports Please find attached copy of correspondence sent to the M,O,E, today regarding the Burlington Airpark, I have included a copy of the referenced consultants report for your information and I ask you guide yourself accordingly, You are also invited to attend our Council Meeting on Monday evening to address any questions they or the public may have for you and the authority you represent Attachment Please advise if you are able to attend, y our~~ery truly " / /? /, /1/~ /. // ' \// ~g , ~\I C~'i;C ~ Y Scott Stewart,C,ET, General Manager Development and Infrastructure Division Cc: Ian Blue, SOlicitor, iblue@gardiner-roberts.com Jeff Fielding, City Manager Blake Hurley, Legal Services Department 426 Brant Street P,O, Box 50'13 8urllngton' Ontario' 17R 3Z6

195 170 Glenn Grenier From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Blue, Ian Friday, July 12, 20134:41 PM Glenn Grenier; Brent McPherson FW: Burlington Executive Airpark guther murray airpark let july 12-13,pdf; REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS BURLINGTON EXECUTIVE AIRPARK - finalpdf; ministry environ let july 12-13,pdf FYI From: Knight, Jennifer [mailto:jennifelknight@burlington,caj Sent: Friday, July 12, :0S PM To: rguther@hrca.on,ca; nmurray@hrca,on.ca Cc: Blue, Ian; Fielding, Jeff; Hurley, Blake; Stewart, Scott Subject: Burlington Executive Airpark Please see attachments, Thank you, Jen Knight Administrative Assistant Community and Corporate SelVices Division 6th Floor Brant Street Burlington ON LlR 3Z6 phone: , ext 7895 jennifer.knighl((i)burlinqton,ca wwwburlingtonca This message, including any attachments, is privileged and intended only for the addressee(s) named above, If you are not tl~e intended recipient, you must not read, use or disseminate the information contained in this /fax, If you have received this /fax transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone, fax or and permanently delete this from your computer!shred tllis fax, including any attachments, without making a copy. Access to this lfax by anyone else is unauthorized, Thank you... hn (,;,::n:m\j"l'~~~lli('n 1~2 :,u!iatqlf",:b""nf P';~;~;~,~!'Bnd (;0'11 ::(108 ix}n['fjenhhilncu'1l10iic;l i:yi,1:1(}e~i l)f'ly \i)( ilk: U2!$u!iS,0 wi'lom 1~ ;$ Addn,>2s~;J,,.::..ny :)th...::( ~j;sh;t'l..\:h)h C('PYlfllJ t" \S S:!'Kil), lj!fyqv h;wt? f0c0rv'8d ll'lts m;:ssi'l!;:: ')l1or. Gt{t<-~S(, Q0Hly vs [nlfnctvf!lf<y ;;U} (Y;i0'iC'!itt; 'n';;$-s.fl{le) ;wn~ Vl/IJI m{y( ~\i.',~ tdii)')ul ',,~,:d,'\(l ex i,<;pyi:)9 L0: (.'';I')I'':((u '.;C: u,:-;, 0f\\' )i. P(:ul (,,;'0 pn'il1;:'gl,;; S( cl)nh::yo'nlhsl 'Ie ~\'d!r.:ss2' tjl!-at:('~i 0B:;hll<Jti)!h'{~) n;::'!:~~i~,,;~;,;~':j::i.<:;"'su:'i-! ~'0ie ilutf:? dl;,;bbutk'f!, 8~;?::::hhfJi': 01' d',:'jjq~'ii("l c:st,~i'tig:c-rr;e,'y\ jr;ic:\1:ji\?, Si \":!-t6 D-V:':Z fi2z:! (;C m0s$i)~~ ;Xl( sr,,,:ur, svp inf.)onc;:!1uu::. it t:;( S-l.1;)i.:'ftij'"J;:: ':.r1,' ~~',e3~)a;)2 de ',Ivl,-? helle de r8!>?pli0n ~;3n$!s>{,lU'-':: f,t( i3 C'x."lj)ic,r. 1

196 TAB 22

197 171 This is Exhibit "A" referred to in the Affidavit of JEFF STEVENSON SWORN before me this 22Dd day of July, 2013 A Commissioner, etc.

198 TERRAPEX Environmental Ltd. July 11,2013 CB City of Burlington 426 Brant Street Burlington, ON L7R2G2 Attention: Mr. Cary Clark, P.Eng. Manager of Development & Environmental Engineering Development & Infrastructure Division Re: Review of Environmental Reports Imported Fill Quality Burlington Executive Airpark Dear Mr. Clark: Further to your request, Terrapex Environmental Ltd. (Terrapex) is pleased to provide our review of available environmental testing reports of fill materials received at the Burlington Executive Airpark (the Airport) that were provided by the City of Burlington (the City), and provide our opinion of fill quality within the framework applicable federal and provincial regulations. Jurisdiction and Regulatory Context It is Terrapex's understanding, based on discussions with the City, that approximately 500,000 cubic meters of fill material has been r!'lceived at the Airport site between 2008 and present, and that the Airport property is privately owned. We understand that, as air operations at the Airport facility are regulated by the Canadian federal Aeronautics Act (M), the site stakeholders maintain that other provincial or municipal regulations do not apply, namely provincial regulations goveming the importing of fill materials. It is Terrapex's understanding that the M, while regulating air operations at airports in Canada, is silent on matters of fill placement at airport sites. Furthermore, it is our experience in working on federal projects for several years, that if a projae! site is not owned by the federal govemment, regulatory evaluations automatically default to the applicable provincial regulations, and in some cases, to applicable municipal regulations. In cases where the site is federally owned, yet no federal regulatory framework exists for any applicable aspact of the project, then applicable 920 Bran/ Street, Suite 16, Burlington, Ontario, LlR 4J1 Ph: (905) Fax: (905)

199 173 provincial regulations are applied as a default. As the Airport site is privately owned, and no federal regulations applying to the placement of fill material are apparent, it is Terrapex's opinion that provincial regulations definitely apply to fill plaoement at this site. In addition, despite the site owners arguments for federal jurisdiction at the receiving site, provincial regulations definitely apply to movement of wastes from the shipping sites, and transportation of waste (contaminated soil is generally considered a solid non-hazardous wasle) on Onlario roadways. Considering these factors, Terrapex suggests that the applicable regulation pertaining to fill placement al this site is Ontario Regulation (OReg.) 153/04, made under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA), as well as specific Section of the EPA itself, and O.Reg 347 governing waste management Ontario Regulation 153/04 Requirements with Respect to Fill Placement Generally speaking, O.Reg outlines three main requirements for acoeptance of fill material at sites in Ontario. These include: 1. chemical analysis of soils to be received at a frequency of one sample per 160 cubic meters for the first 5,000 cubic meters, and one sample per each 300 cubic meters thereafter; 2. chemical analysis of soils to be received for ali parameters reasonably expect to be contaminants of concern at the shipping site; and 3. concentrations of tested parameters must meet the Table 1 Site Condition Standards listed in Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under pari XV.1 of the Environmenlal Protection Act, MOE, April 15, 2011, unless a Record of Site Condition exists at the receiving site in which case imported.soils must meet the Site COfldition Standards indicated as appropriate fclf the site in the Record of Site Conditions. Ontario Environmental Protection Act with Respect to Waste In addition to the O.Reg , Terrapex also suggests the following pertinent EPA requirements. The EPA (Part V; Section 25) defines "waste" as "includes ashes, garbage, domestic waste, industrial waste, or municipal refuse and such olller materials as designated in the regulations". Ontario Regulation 347 (General- Waste Management) (Section 2) designates several categories and types of waste, including "inert fill" which is defined (Section 1) as... earth or reck fill or wasle of a similar nature that contains no putrescible material or soluble or decomposable chemical SUbstances". O.Reg.347 (Section 3) aciually exempts "inert fill" from Part V of the EPA and O.Reg.347, however, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has TERRAPEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. City of Burlington CB

200 174 further defined 'inert fill" as-soils wilh chemical concentrations of contaminants meeting the Table 1 Site Condition Standards, and only in this case is the fill material considered inert and exempt. It therefore follows that fill, the quality of which does not meet these standards, is not considered inert, and is indeed considered a waste which is not exempt from Part V of the EPA or O.Reg.347. Part V (Section 25) of the EPA defines "waste disposal site" as "(a) any land upon, into, in or through which, or building or structure in which, waste is deposited, disposed of, handled, stored, trensferred, treated or processed, and (b) any operation carried out or machinery or equipment used in connection with the depositing, disposal, handling, storage, transfer, treatment or processing referred to in clause (a)". Part V (Section 40 - Prohibition as to deposit of waste) indicates that "No person shall deposit, or cause, permit or arrange for the deposit of, waste upon, in, into or through any fand or'land covered by water or in 'any building that is not a waste disposal site for what an environmentar compliance approval or renewable energy approval has been issued or a registration under Part 11.2 is in effect and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approval or the regulation made for the purposes of Part , c.16, Sched. 7, s. 2 (30)." Review of Environmental Testing Reports The City provided Terrapex with 56 documents for review. The documents consisted of FAXes, s, reports, and in some cases loose laboratory certificates of analysis. Of the 56 documents, two of them indicated that the material was rejected, and 11'''0 other documents were specifically geotechnical in nature and provided no chemical data. The remaining 52 reports were reviewed by Terrapex and summarized in the attached table with specific comment regarding the dates of testing, the source of the fill material, expected contaminants of concem, parameters analyzed, whether the sample data met Table 1 or Table 2 Site Condition Standards, where the material was placed at the Airport, and the quantity of fill material represented by the samples. As shown in the attached table, the majority of the dala was from 2010 and Considering that the fill operation was ongoing from 2008 to present, Terrapex suggests that either much of the fill was not tested, or all ofthe data was not available or provided. Further to requirement #1 above, considering 500,000 cubic meters of material was received at the Airport, at the prescribed rate' of testing indicated in O.Reg.1S3/04 approximately 1700 samples (meeting Table 1 standards) would have been required in order to demonstrate suitability of the fill material for receipt at the Airp"oifsite. Considering that the" sum of samples collected, represented by the 52 reports reviewed was 323 samples, we conclude that sampling frequency was inadequate. TERRAPEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. City of Burlington CB

201 175 With respect to item.#2' above, only one of the 52 reports reviewed provided any rationale for expected contaminants of concern at the shipping site. Therefore, Terrapex cannot conclude that appropriate analyses were completed at the remaining 51 shipping sites. Further to requirement #3 above, Terrapex found that of the 323 samples tested (possibly for inadequate contaminants of concern) only 134 samples (41%) actually met the Table 1 Site Condition Standards. These samples were collected from 13 of the 52 sites (25%). It should be noted that while many of the Tabla 1 exoeedences were for electrical oonductivtty (EC) and/or sodium adsorption ration (SAR) only, 17 of the 39 sites yielding failing samples (Of 32% of total sites tested) also indicated exoeedences of Table 1 standards for parameters such as petroleum hydrooerbons (PHC), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and/or metals such as cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb), and zinc (Zn). Notwithstanding that the Table 2 Site Condition Standards are not applicable to the site, the City indicated to Terrapex that the site owner was screening analytical results to assure that fill received did meet the Table 2 standards. However based on our review, only 244 of the 323 samples actually met the Table 2 standards. While EC and/or SAR exoeeded the Table 2 standards at 25 of the sites, sample from 5 of these shipping sites also had concentrations of one or more of PHC, PAH, and metals exceeding the associated standards. Further to the issue of use of the Table 2 Site Condition Standards, Region of Halton correspondence provided to Terrapex by the City indicates that despite the OReg. 153/04 Table 1 requirement for fill material, the Table 2 Site Condition Standards are not appropriate for the site due to the presence of environmentally sensitive sites proximate to the Airport lands. Conclusions Based on our understanding of federal and provincial regulations and the documents provided by the City for review, Terrapex concludes the following: 1. The regulation applicable to receipt of fill material at the Airport site is Ontario Regulation and based on this regulation only materials meeting the Table 1 Site Condition Standards listed in Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards for Use Under part XV. 1 of the Environmental Protection Act, MOE, April 15, 2011 are appropriate for use as fill at the site. -'2. Based on the amount of fill received at the Airport site and the dala reviewed, the sampling and analytical frequency is inadequate. 3. As contaminants of concern were not substantiated for the majority (51 of 52) shipping siles the adequacy of lhe sampling programs cannot be assured. TERRAPEX ENVlRONMENTAL LTD. City of Burlington CB

202 Only 41 % of samples represented in the body of data reviewed indicated concentrations of all analyzed parameters meeting the applicable Table 1 Site Condition Standards. Although sampling frequency was inadequate, this data may suggest that only 4 i % of material received at the Airport site (approximately 200,000 of 500,000 cubic meters) actually meets the applicable standard. 5. The receipt of fill material exceeding the Table 1 standards, which is classified as waste in accordance with the EPA, O.Reg.347, and the MOE, is in contravention of EPA Section 40 prohibiting the deposit of waste on lands which are not an approved disposal site. The deposit of waste at the Airport site has essentially resulted in the establishment of an unlicensed waste disposal site, which may have ramifications for not only the receiver; but the various shippers and haulers of the waste. I trust this information meets your currerit requirements. If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, TERRAPEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. '>.4' /" /:' /- -- ly '" I~.' rc{'.. z-..(.''--" /Jeff Stevenson, P.Geo. i Senior Project Manager TERRAPEX ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. City of Burtington CB

203 I J ) UurHn&ton Executive Airpark Imported fill Mutcrlal SummMY of l'f1vlrunmcnta! fh!fiorh 1,, 4 Report Name Environmental Sampling and Chemical AnalysIs Upper Middle Road, Burlinston (lvm) 4100 Report Date (dd/mmfyy) 10/19/2010 Geotechn!t;:allnvest1uallon, I'roposed Ubrury Addition an d 1/l4/20U Parking lot, West Side of Woodlands, Secondary School, )225 rlndale Station ROlla, Mls$IMauga (Shad <lod AssodatQ51 laboratory Cerl!flcate of Analysis Te5trnark l(lboratorlcs 11/22/2012 ltd, 22/1il'012 f\f!~u!u 0' Environmental Soli Chumlelll AnilIYja'$ (or 1l/za!20lZ Ex~css SoU Management, Wedg"cwood Jun!or Public S~hool, 5 Swan Avenue, Toronto, Ontario (CofftlY) Source of Material s~mplcd Construction Sltl! 4100 Upper Middle Road, Burlington N/A~ Nochcmlcai aoalysls completed Unknown School Yard 5 Swan Avenue, Toronto Expected Cantamtnllntli of Concurn Unknown N/A Unknown None Parameters Concentrations Me t Concentrations Me t PlacemDnt location Volume or soil AnalYlllu Table lscs Tabln 2SCS at Situ ftu)jrc.$(!ntod by th BTEX, PHC Fl-f4, 6 of7 samplc.s 7 of 7 ~amples Unknown Unknown SAR, Ee, ph, Cyanide, PCBs, and metals N/A N/A NIA NfA N/A ph, EC, SAR, VQC, o of 2 samples {fall 1 of 2 samples (fal I Unknown Unknown meta!~ for EC only) for ECon!vl ph, Ee, SAR, mqtills 2. of2sampim 2. of 2. sample~ Unknown Unknown Oatll 5, 7 Emal! from Ellseo Landone 01/03/l013 covering: 1/19/2011 GeotechnJcallnvestlgaUon, wat,ermaln Replacement, Plains ROild, Uurllncton, Ontilrlo (SPt) from EliHlO Lnndone 05/03/l013 t:ovurlnj;!: <J/12/2011 Chemical Characterization of sou, Water Main Rep!(lct!ment Tedlo St((!llt and Arca, MbdHlIIJClJ, Ont~rlo ISPl! (mil!! (rom (H$eo LllflcJone u/oa/zoi3 coverln!j: IJxcerpt Unknown from Watermaln & Sunltary 5t!werReplacemcnt, Spruce Avel1ue, [luritngton, Onlarlo (Trow) N/A- NochemlclIl analysis completcd Construction SIte Tedlo Street, Mb~hsaufla Con~tructron Slle Spruce Avenue, Uurllngton NfA Unknown Unknown N/A NfA NfA N/A INfA ph, Ee, SAR, met~h 1 of 2 samples (fall 2 of 2 samplcs Unknown Unknown (or EC only) ph, EC, SAlt metill~ o (If Il sllmples (nll 1 of n sllmples (6 of n Unknown Unknown (al! for$ar and EC:2 fall SAft; 6 of 8 fall fall Ua) ECi n, from John Hutter 22/03/2013 covering: Analytical 3/111/2012 Test He:iUlts for SoU Disposal, Proposnd EXl:ava\Jon for Wlltcrm.1Jn Trem:hes, Kennlnghul! Cr & CrlllJltvllJw ftoad, Mlu!uuuga, Ontario (Soli Probe Ltd.) Emal! froiti Mlluhl1w Hutter 04/04/2013 coverlng: 6/15/2014 Stockpiled SoU Chemic..! Analysns 1\(l.5ul1$, Milln S\re()t West, Milton subdivision, Milton, OntH! (AMEC) Proposed sewer trenth "residential subdivision, Steen Drlvc Md PIne CUff Drive, MlssIsslluga Unknown 5011 Stockpllc Nonc l\ttsldenlial Ollvelopment, Milln Street ilnd Whitmer Slfeet, MJiton atex, PHe Fl F4, 2 Of 2 5ample~ Z of 2. silmplcs Unknown Unknown SAft, EC, ph, PCBs, and ml1tals ph, Ee, SAR, metals " of 3 sample5 1:1 of 1:1 samplcs Unknown Unknown i 10 FAX from Jell Contrilttlns Ltd OB/04/2013 covering: 12/6/2010 excerpt from a report by Coffcy Geotcdmh:$ Unknown Unknown ph, Ee, SAIl., VOC, Oaf 5 samples {au 4 of 5 samples (1 fal! Unknown Unknown metals fau for SAil; 4 fall for for EConly) Ee; ROL for sevllnll par<lmcters ekcelld Table 1 SCS 11 from ftllglnll Construction Umlted 23/0'1/2013 4/17/2013 CtlverlnR: Cltem1cal AnaJysl5 Rcsults, Garden Avunue Junior Public School AddlUon, ns GllrUcn AvenlJll, Toronto, OntarIo (Men). Proposed School Addlllol1 Garden AVllnuc Toronto '" Nonc ph, Ee, SAn, metil!s o of 2 s~mples (fall 2of2Hmpies Unknown Unknown forsar only)...\. ""

204 i) J l. i, Our!!nutIHl E1I{!~\ltllit! Alrpnril < Imported Fill Mllturlal 5ummury of Ellvlronment~1 Ruporls Report Name Report DlIte (dd/mm/vy) (rom Matthew Hutter 07 j05/2013 covering: 9/17/2012 Results of Avgsut 30, 2012 Envlronment;!1 Soli Chemical Amllys{Js, Mack!!" Public Schoof" 136 Inglilt(m Blvd, Toronto, Ontario jcoffuj:l from Victor OePulma 00/05/20l3 covering: l/lo/lolu Lauoratory CcrtllIG~t(l of An~ly5Is" Ma)()wm Anilrytlt~ 10/01/2010 from EliHu;> L;mdon/J 14/0$/2013 toverln8: excerpt 5/3/2000 from 11 repor! by Soli-Ene LImited, May 2000 SourCe of Matllrhll Expected Sampl~d Contaminants Df Concern Proposed School Nonc Addition l3g Ingleton alvd, Torontn N/A~TCLP only N/A Unknown Unknown P.. rllm!!tefs AnlllYlc:d ph, Ee, SAR, metals MIA ph, Ee, SM, mntuls ComcnUat!uoJl MI) t Concentrations Me t Placement location Vo/umo of SoU Tllbln 1 SCS Tublo 2. SCS atslto ReprnSonhld by till Oilt«1 of 2 sllmples (1 fau 1 of2sampl1!5 Ii faj I Unknown Unknown for EC lind cyanide) for EC lind cyanide) MIA N/A N/A MIA 1 of 4 samples (3 fau 2 of 4 sample$ (2 Unknown Unknown SAK; 1 faus ECj fal!~ SAR; 1 (1I1h!;C) from Mark Hrvatin 15/05/2013 (overing: Stockpile 5/14/2013 Sampling, 33G Oundas Street East, Oalwllle, Ontario AMEC) from John Barroso 15/01/2013 covering: chemleal 11/9/2012 Analysl:i of M~terlals to be Excavated, 233Z Upper Middle Rond W(J$t, OllkvHlc, OntarIo (Haddlld Gcotedmd~IJ SoU Stockpllo '" None'" Oundas Stn:et East, Oukvllle Propo5cd Residential None* Oevelopment, 2332 Upper MIddle Road We~[, Onkvllle ph, Ee, SAil, mlltal~ ph, Ee, SAR, metals, PHC, voe o of 2 samples (both o of 2 samples (both Unknown 50m3 samplos fau EC and fal! Ee; 1 (atls SAR) SARi, 1 of 4 $amp!es (2 fall II of 4 samples Unknown Unknown for SAR; 1 falls for 6,) 17 from EU$eo Lundone 11/03/2013 coverlnu: \lxcerpt 24/02/2000 from TCHilProUC Ilpeort 24/02/2000 llnd AGAr 05/11/201l laboratory certllicatns of AnalysIs 05/11/2012 Propo$cd Water Ma!n OakvUle Unknown ph, Ee, SAR, met~h o of a ~amp!o~ 12 S of a samplo$ Unknown Unknown fal! for Ee; (Ill fau (2 fal! Ee; 2 hlu SAR) SAR) ZO : EmnU from Mntthew Huller 03/05/2013 covering: 6/23/2012 Geotechn!calltwestlgatlon, ProposerlTown Hall flcnovllllons, 1255 Trafalll~r Road, Oakville, Ontario 23loUL2012 (EXP! Labonltmy CertlfJC:lltllof Arwlysls" Max)(am AnillytlC$ 6/22/' /06/2009 FAX from Oynux ConslfUc.tlon Ltd, Ol/04/l011 CoverIng: lllbon:ltory Cerltlfcatc of Analy~!$ ~ Max)(am Analytlcs 08/12/2010 u/a/20l0 ProposudTown Hill! Renovation; 1255 TrallallH IlOlld, OakvWo Unknown Unkr\Own Unknown Unknown Unknown ph, fc, SAil, metllh ph, Ee, SAR, metill$, peds, PHC, UTEX ph, Ee, SAil, mntab, PAHs, PHC, vae, pestlcldus, dlolns and furans 101 "::amples (2 1 of 3 umpltu (2 Unknown Unknown fill! for EC llnd SAR) fall for SAil only) 1 pf 4 samples 2 of 4 $ilmples Unknown Unknown (1 f;lils for Ee,' 2 fall (1 falls for Ee; 1 fall Cui Cui Ootlumplt! 1 of 1 sample Unknown 100 loads (falls for (looom)!?) tlouranthene and ODE) 21 FAX from ECS Ennlncering &, ConHructlon Ltd. 01/12/ /00/20U Coverlnn:: excerpt from a report by Coffuy on u/oa/1oll Supplemen\,HY Geotechnical hivc~tl{latjon, Etoblcoko Creek Trunk Sllwar Renewal 01/12/2009, and laboratory Ccrltlft;iltu of i\na!ysls ~ Mil)(IWm Anillytlc$ 11/0B/2011 from 1100 Kart S(rent, OakvtHo Unknown 8< Unknown &. Canadian TIre Slore petroleum 1100 Kerr Street, hydrocarbons OakvlUe ph, Et, SAR, matal$, PHC, voe 4 Of 9 5amplM &. o a Of 9 5arnples 6>. Unknown Unknown of 4 sampleslall f of 4 samples (2 fall SARi)l fiji! CUI 1. fau SAR; 2 fall Cd) Cd) " FAX (rom NEI Construction Corp. 04/05/2011 Covering: 3/4/2011 Results of Env!ronmental son Chemical Analys{ls, Runway End Safety Arcos (RESA) Improvement, lester O. PHarson Internatltlflal Alrport0<1/0J/10ll (Coffey), _._----- Toronto AIrport None ph, EC, SAn, ffiatals o of 4:;amplcs 3 of 4 5amples { Unknown Unknown (aji fall EC) 1 faus Ee) -----~..., <XI "'"

205 > ~ E ; = = e 0 3 ~ -5 c ~ ~ ;; > go = '".!! 1i.s.!! = ;;; I 0 E: if ~ ::J.!! ~ N.:; ~ :;;,s: = U " 0 g N ~ :;: g ~ ",s: B 0. = " = i ~ N '0 N 0 " E ~ N '0 3 = 0.,5 = 3 0. = " 3 = 0 ~ = = ~ = = ~ =.. &,5 =,5 = = " " " m '" '0 N 179 " ~.!! E i i «= ~.' E ~ ~ u' w Z 0 '0 1i ~ = E li 0 e ~ = =.:i s u = u!i = ", 0 " ~ ~ 1i B ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~, 0 >2 = n ~ _ 0 ; ~ Q. = o Z j 5 ~ e :; 0,'i ~ ]j '" 1; E ~ c 0 ] c " E '" " 1i ~ " ~ ~ = '" '0 = (', ~ l:- S E '" :; 0 E 0 E ; ~ "

206 !) ij,, \l; \ UurHnatQn ll/'wcutlvu Alrpurll > Imported fill Material Summary of El1l1lronm~ntal RuporU " Repurt Naml! fax from Calder Hili Contrllctlng Umlted 02/00/2011 COl/orion: EXcerpts of.$ilvcra! reports by Tcrrllprobc 2009 and Golder 2009 :W09 Report Data (dd/mm/yy) Source of Material 511mpiud Unknown Expocted Contaminants of Concern Unknown Parameters Anlllytcd ph, fe, SAR, ffietah Concentrations Me t Concentrations Me t Plac('!ment locatlon Volume of Sol! Table lsc5 Table 2SCS <It SIte ReptuStmted by th~ Onta o of 3 samp!ns (2 faj I 0 (If 3 $llmpies /1 far I Unknown Unknown for Ee; 1 fal! SAR; 1 for Ee; 1 fau SAR; 1 falley)&. 30(14 (al! Cu) & samples P fall Eel mphu ( 6 fall Et; 6 (illl SAil; 1 fill! Pb) 8< flil! SM; 1 f<l!! Ph) (j of 16 $;!mphn flo 12 of 16 Sllffijlle.s (4 (1111 EC~ only Ee filii Ee only Ee t(l$tljdl& 1 \estud) &, of.3 samples (2 filii otlsamplu e-, (ule. 7 of of 13 lmmplu5 ()) fall 13 slimptun(5 fllll E( ; Ee) 4 f~h SAn; 1 filii Sb) EmaJJ from Rob lachett~ 29/09/1.011 covering: 1/17/2011 Guotuchnlcallnv(!sdRatlon Ruport for Alton Public School, OurHngton, Ontario 17/o1/,lotl!Coffuy) laboratory CettWcatu of Analysis. AGAT laboratorlos 0/29/ /06/2Q11 (rom JennIfer 25/10/2011 toverlng: SoH ChemIcal 10/3/2011 Testing nepart, Woou5!dellnlOcn Public LIbrary, Oakville, Ontario OJ/l0/1011{ Forwllrd). FAX from H/l&T 03/11/2011 Covering: labarlltory 21l/10/10n Certlflci)te~ af Anillysls ~AGAT'Laboratorl(Js 28/10/1011 Propose School Unknown ConstruGlion -Alton Schoo! S!te, Burlington Unknown Unknown library Project ~ Unknown OakvJI!e & Data from an Afaxs!IQ 97 commluloner$ Unknown Street, Toronto ph, Ee, SAR, rnetllis Ee, SAR ph, Ee, SAn, metals vurlailln Inducting PHC, metals, Ee, SAn 7 of 9 silmples {2 fall 9 of 9 s~mple5 Unknown Unknown EC only) o of 4 samples ( of 4 SlImpte5 Unknown Unknown fall far Ee; :I fau for SAm 6 of 6 sample.s G of 6 samples Unknown Unlrnown.3 of 7 s~mp!ns (3 (ill! 7 of 7 silmples Unknown 7000mS PHe F2; 1 taus EC) 37 an EnvrlonmlJntai Analytical TestIng /lesult~, Dundlls Strect li/h/20!l SanItary Sownr & Forcemaln, Oakville, Ontario 12/11/2011 (Thurber) Hllnd Delivery uy HIt& T 12/17,./2011 CovlJrlnJl: Laboratory 11/7.3/20U CenlHellle of AnalysIs ~ AGAT Laborntorle.:; 23/11/20U Forcema!n praject OllkvlJle Unknown 97 CommlHJoners Unknown Street, Toronto ph, t;c, SAR, mctals ph, EC, SAlt, mljtllh, PHC 3 of3 3lImpiUl 3 of:l $amp!e~ Unknown l)nknown 10 of 19 snmplc$ (.3 19 of 19 ~nmples Unknown tlooo mll fall PHC Fl; 3 fllll PHC F2i 1 falls xylenesi 4 fau Ee; 2. fall SAR) " from Vln(;e Cardinal! 16/12/2011 covnlns! Results 3/1.9/ZOH of February 7 & H, 2011 Environmental 5011 Chemical Analysb StPPIl [vilulaton, nrarylll Creck SubdIvisIon, Oal-.vHie, Ontarlon 19!03!lOll (Coffey) SubdivisIon ~ Ollkvllll1 Nanl.!'" ph, Ee, SAR, m!jtah 1 of 1. :mmphl$ (1 filii 1. of 2 samples Unknown Unknown for EC) '2 Soli i!nvl(()nmentll/ EVldl,l~tlon Prop05cd Addition to Clifton PulJlit S~hook, 231:19 CIIJf Road, Mhs!$$lIugn, Ontario 21/12/2011 (JT Oonilldl Geotechnlc(lllnvestlgaUon, Washburn PumpIng St(ltlon, HNthflcld DriVe lurllngton, OntnloJanullry200(l (PMtl lulin011 }an-o(l laboratory CNU/lcllte of Analysis ~ AGAT LaboratorIes 2/11/ /11/2010 School AddItion ~ Unknown 23(19 Cliff Road, M!~~b$3Ug3 Addttton to PumpIng None stntjon Burlington Unknown Unknown ph, Ee, SAR, metals ph, Ee, SAR, metals ph, EC, SAil, metals, PHC, pesticides 3 of 5 $~mple.s (2 filii 5 of 5 samples Unknown Unknuwn SAR) 3 of3 sllmpl(!$ 3 of:l samples Unknown Unknown 1 of 1511mple 1 of 1 sample Unknown Unknown... (X) o

207 I il nurllncton EXllcutlve Airpark Importuu Fill MatarJul, Summary of EnvIronmental Reports Rapor! Name Report Datu Source of Material Expected (dd/mm/vv) Sampled Contaminants of Concern 43 FAX rrom lakulde ContHicting 12/11/2010 COl/ednll: 1217/101-0 OurUngton Unknown laboratory CerU!Jcah,!5 of Anillysl$ ~ AGAT laboratories 12/07/2010 i Stockplhld Soli sampling lind A/H)lysl!, propo);cd RutllU 20/0S/ stockpile ~ Unknown " Oevulopnlllflt, Appleby Uno llnd Dundas street, Proposed IJudlngton, ontarlon m/os/201d (Trow) development" Burlington 45 FAX from Ronl ExcilvaUn Umlted 04/01/2011 Covmlnu: 4/2/1011 liusldentlal Sub Nonu'" f\c5ulsts of soli chemlgill Anillysls, Dundils & 6th line division Development, Rc~!dcnt!al Sub-division, Ounda$ ilnd Sixth Dcvelopcmnt" Unc, f;miwll!c, ontario 04/02/2911 (Terraprobc) Oakv!l!c Parameters ---C,;l\ccntnttlol1s Me AnalYllld Table 1 SCS metals, PHC, voe PHC ph, EC, SAR, metals ]. uf2nmplcs ]. orz,<;omples 5 of.5 laltlpjc$ t Concentrattons Me Table]. SCS ]. of 2 samples ]. of]. samples S of 5 $llfllples t Plncement Location atsltll Unknown Unknown Unknown Voluma of SoU Represented by tilt Dalll 500m3 Unknown Unknown 46 FAX from Hf\&T 21/09/2011 Coverlnlll Lauoriltory 12/9/ Commissioner Unknown Curtlf!cate5 of Analysis" AGAT Laboratorhu 12/09/2011 Street, TQ(onto 47 FAX from Ockrn Transport Inc 13/05/2011 Covering: 28/12/1010 Sub-divisIon Unknown Environmental Te$t!ng Alton North SublllvslJon Project, devlopment~ Dudln 'ton, OntarIo 28/17./2010 {SoU-matI Oudlncton 46 I\eport, Suusunllcc Investlgllthm, Maylllldl West Public 22/09/2010 Propo$ed Schoo! None School, Ca!oclon, Ontario 22/09/2010 (forward Devetppment" Englllllllrtng enledon 49 Emlal (rom NflU MacKcnllo 04/10/2011 Coverfng: Report 2.0/07/l011 SoH Stockpile" PHC, VOe. salt, on GeoEnvJronmental Sol! sampling lind Chemical Bronte GO Stilllon- metal, PH~, peds Analyses, SoH Stockpile, Orontc GO StatIon, Town of Oakvllte OakyUlu, OntarIo ZO/07/2011 tpml) metab, PHC 7 of 9' samples (1 flals PHC 1'2; 1 falls SbJ ph, fe, SAR, metals, 3 of 3 samples PHC ph, EC, SAR, metob 3 of 3 samples PHC, voe, salt, 14 of 405Dmples (14 metu!, PH$, pees fal! fc/san; 12 fall Pb; 1 fal! Zn) 9 of 9 sampju$ 3 of 3 samples 3 of:l samples samples! 9 fau EC/SAnj Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 0,000 m:l lo,000m3 Unknown 10,000 ~ 15,000 m3 50 Letter from Top$lte Contrm:tJns umltud 04/10/ /01J/2.010 Go StillIon ParkIng Nonc Covering: Results of TU$t Pit Inv4stlCillion ilnd Soli Structure Chemkal AnalY$ls, Er!nd~le GC? Station Parking StruclUre, devc!openlntmlssls~auga, Ontulro 17/01J/2010 (Terraprobu) Mbslmmga PAH, voe, PHC 3 of 5 ~ilmpjes (2 fau PAHs) 5 o( 5 $UmpJo5 Unknown Unknown 51 Gnmd park Drive and Ournhillntlmrpe Road Wu~t E;mrth 20/01/2.011 Proposed Unknown Fm Characterlullion 20/07 /2011!Terr~probe) Development - " MI$sls~au!Jn FAX from Hf\& T lu/ou/2011 Covering: Laboratory S/S/ZOll Unknown Unknown Certlflcatu5 of Al1i!Jysls. ALSLaboratorius 06/06/ FAX from liablto construction ltd, 20/10/2011 Covering: 7/7/2011 Watermain Unknown Chemlcill CharilcterlutJon of SoU, PlUm Trent CresGent replacement" and VandllrUt Road In Mlu!sSlIuga, Ontalro 07/07/2011 M!ss!uaug(l SPll ' S3 FAX from limbe! ltd, 14/10/2011 Covering: Report on 25/03/2011 Watc(maln Unknown Geot{)chnkul!nvest!f!~llon WilterMuln rllpljcemunt, fiepjilcement Tedwyn Dr!ye, Astll Drive, Aba,nil Road, FeUna court, MIss!ssiluga Pashak Crllscent, ~nd Selsny Drive, Mbslssaulla, ontario 25/0;.1/20;1.1 ($PL) ph, EC, SAfI, metals, 2 of 6 samples (3 fau PHC, PAH, PHC EC, 2. fall SARi 1 fulls PAH PHe, metub, SAR, 2 of 13 samples {7 PMI fall PHC F2; 1 fa!! PAH; fau Ph; 2. faji Sb' 2 fall SARI ph, Ee, SAR, met~!s 2. of 5 samples (3 (all (I)r E.C and SAn) ph, Ee, SAR, metals o of 10 samples {au (1111 SARi 7 fau EC) 5 of 6 samples (1 f~1i ECj 13 of 13 samples 2. of 5 samplos (3 fall for EC and SAn} 2. of 10 5ampl1l5 (6 fill! EC; 6 fau SAR} Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 150m3 Unknown... (XI...

208 -5 Ji > ~ e ~ 0 ~. E 0 = ~ " E 0 > fr.ii ~ " B.'l ~ " ;;; ~ 0 0 ~ EO " :E ~ tl " g '" '" ~w 0 :0 a t= m 0 0 ~ ]rr ~ ::; u m < ~ :E tl ~g 0 ~ 0 N -a.!! f ~ E a :0!3. m ~ 0 :\ -0 '" 0 ::; u ~ ~ u E E < ~ " 1!. m' E ~ : "' 11 e ~!l ~ :; ~ ~ ] B 0 3 E 0 0 u.ii 0 " i! c..e ;;. " ] 1l '0 E m " tl E Ii ~ ~ ~ 0 " ~ m,; 0 '" E '" "g... ~~.~ 0 ~- N ~, ;:;.,,< "" " ::1 " " ~.E <5 > 0.E 0 1l " ~ 0 ~ -g 0 U " '" ~ ~.g E ; ~ -0 ~ ~~, ::l 0 '" " ",- 0, ~ ~ 2 ~ 0 ~ E, 0 E fr z.::10 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ;; -E -0 ~ 0 N E m 1: ~ e- o 0 fr l" B 0 ~ u -0 " ~ E ~ S.. " _ '" E 0.? e 0 0 ;; 11 ~ ;; u ;; 0 0, ~.1J, 0 " ".s B " " '" '" ~ ~ D 0 S 0 E -0 ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ u 'il 0 0 B ] 1:- E e o, 1l.5 i ~ ~ ':;;;: Jg N " 0 E ~ ~2 g ~ 5 E x m E = :z: 5 o - ~ ::::: ::: " m ffi ~ m " 0 0 ~ Z m N

209 TAB 23

210 183 This is Exhibit "J" referred to in the Affidavit of Scott Stewart sworn July 30, ' linda Dianne Robinson, a Commlsslonef} GtG.~ province ot Ontario, for Gardiner Roberts LLP. Lawyers. Expires August

211 Page 1 of16 TIlE CORPORATION OF TIlE CI1Y OF BliRLil'lGTON 184 BY-LAW A By-law to Protect and Conserve Topsoil And For Prohibiting or'regulating the Alteration of Property Within the City of Burlington WHEREAS Sections of the Municipal Act, 2001, S. 0., c.25 as amended, provides that the Council of a local municipality may pass by-laws prohibiting or regulating the Placing or Dumping of Fill or alteration of the Grade ofland in any defined area or on any class ofland; NOW TIffiREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Burlington hereby enacts as follows: SHORT TITLE This by-law may be cited as the City oj Burlington Topsoil Pre~ervation and Site Alteration Bylaw. L DEF]}UTIONS Īn this By-law: "City" means the Corporation of the City of Burlington; 1.2. "Council" means the Council of The Corporation of the City of Burlington; 1.3. "Director" and "Director of Engineering" means the Director of Engineering for the Corporation of the City of Burlington or his or her designate; 1.4. "Drainage" means the movement of water to a place of disposal, whether by way of the natural characteristics of the ground surface or by artificial means; 1.5., "Dumping" and "Dump" means the depositing of Fill in a location other than where the Fill was obtained or the movement and depositiog of Fill from one location on a property to another location on the same property; 1,6. "Erosion" means the detachment and movement of soil, sediment or rock fragments by water, wind, ice or gravity; 1.7. "Fill" means any type of material capable of being removed from or deposited on lands; 1.8. "Grade" means the elevation of the ground surface and shall be more particularly defined as follows: "Existing Grade" means the elevation of the existing ground surface of the lands upon which Dumping and/or Placing of Fill, altering of the Grade, or removing of Topsoil is proposed and of abutting ground, surface up to three (3) metres wide surrounding such lands, except that where such activity has occurred in contravention of this By-law, Existing Orade shall mean the ground surface of such lands as existed prior to the said activity; "Finished Grade" means the approved elevation of ground surface of lands upon which Fill has been Placed or Dumped, the Grade altered or Topsoil removed, in accordance with this By-law; "Proposed Grade" means the proposed elevation of ground surface of land upon which Fill is proposed to be Placed or Dumped, the Grade altered or Topsoil removed "Inspector" means any person designated hy this or any other by-law of the City as an Inspector for the! 1,!'t

212 purposes of tbis By-law, and such inspectors are so designated pursuant to Schedule "D" to tills By-law; "Owner" includes any person, partnersbip, organization or corporation who or wbich is the registered owner of or controls, maintains or occupies lands; 1.11 "Permit' means a Permit that can be issued pursuant to this By-law, "Placing and Place" means the distribution of Fill on lands to establish a Finished Grade bigher than the Existing Grade; ''Ponding'' means the accumulation of surface water in an area not having Drainage there from wbich the lack of Drainage is caused by the Placing or Dumping offill, altering of Grade of removing of Topsoil; "Retaining Wall" means a wall designed to contact and support Fill wbich has a Finished Grade bigher than that of adjacent lands; U5. "Site" means the lands wbich are the subject of an application for a Permit pursuant to tills By-law; 1.16 "Soil" means material commonly known as earth, Topsoil, loam, subsoil, clay, sand or gravel; 1.17 "storm sewer" means a sewer for the collection and transmission of uncontaminated water, storm water, drainage from land or from a watercourse or any combination thereof under City roads and on City property; 1.18 "Topsoil" means those horizons in a soil profile, commonly known as the "0" and the "An horizons, containing organic material and includes deposits of partially decomposed organic matter such as peat 1.19."watercourse" means an open channel, ditch or depression either natural or artificial, in wbich flow of water occurs either continuously or intermittently; 2. PLACINGfDUMPING FILL - ALTERING GRADE - REMOVAL OF TOPSOIL 2.1. Other than in an approved landfill site, no person shall Place or Dump, or cause or permit the Placing or Dumping, offill on, nor alter or cause or permit the alteration of the Grade of, any lands in the City, including any lands wbich are submerged under any watercourse or other body of water, or along the Lake Ontario or Burlington Bay shoreline, without having first obtained a Site Alteration Permit issued by the Director No person shall remove or cause or permit the removal of any Topsoil from any Site in the City of Burlington without having first obtained a Topsoil Removal Permit issued by the Director A person applying for a Site Alteration Permit or a Topsoil Removal Permit shall submit the following to the Director: a complete application in the form attached' hereto as Schedule "A", which folm may be amended from time to time by the Director; the prescribed fee for a Site Alteration Permit or Topsoil Removal Permit as established from time to time by Council and detailed in Schedule "B" to tills By-law; a Control Plan, the requirements ofwbich are set out in Section 2.5 of this By-law; Phase 1, Phase II and Phase ill Environmental Site Assessment reports as required by the Director; a plan showing the design details to proper scale of any Retaining Wall that the Applicant httpj!v.ry'..-w.burlington.calclerksfbv-lawslhtm1j htm

213 186 ""-""'-5""...J V.l...LV proposes or that may be required by the Director including the dimensions thereof and any materials to be used in construction of any such Retaining Wall; securities in accordance with Schedule "B" to this By-law, to secure performance of"the Applicant's obligations under this By-law and any Permit that is issued Aperson.applying for a Permit shall, in addition to the requirements in subsection 2.3: (a) cerfu'y that the Fill contains no contanlinants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act RS.O. 1990, c.e.19, as amended; (b) forever release the City from, and indemnify the City with respect to, any and all liability which may arise in the event that the Fill contains contanlinants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act, RS.O. 1990, c. E.l9, as amended. The certification required by clause (a), and the release and indemnity required by clause (b), shall be in the form pre-scribed. by Schedule ''A:' appended to this by-law Control Plans are required to be submitted as part of an Application for a Permit pursuant to this By-law and shall include, where applicable: a key map showing the location of the Site; the Site boundaries and number of hectares of the Site; the current and proposed use of the Site and the location and use of the buildings and other structures adjacent to the Site; the location, dimeusions and use of the buildings and other structures existing or proposed to be erected on the Site; the location of lakes, streams, wetlands, channels, ditches, other water courses and other bodies of water on the Site and within frfteen (15) metres beyond the Site boundary for sites less than 0.2 hectares, and within thirty (30) metres beyond the Site boundary for sites greater than 0.2 hectares; the Regional Storm Flood Plain and Conservation Authority Fill Regulation lines, with appropriate setbacks as required by the Couservation Authority; the location of the predominant soil types; the location and dimensions of any existing and proposed storm water drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and within fifteen (I5) metres beyond the Site boundary for sites less than 0.2 hectares, <hid within thirty (30) metres beyond the Site boundary for sites greater than 0.2 hectares; the location and dimensions of utilities, structures, roads, highway and paving; the existing Site topography at a contour interval not to exceed 0.5 metre and to extend a minimum of fifteen (15) metres beyond the Site boundary for sites less than 0.2 hectares, and within thirty (30) metres beyond the Site boundary for sites greater than 0.2 hectares; the location, difu.l1eter, species and drip line of all trees with a calliper measuring 100 mm or greater at breast height, all other vegetation is to be identified in masses showing outline of canopy created by the massing; all existing vegetation 3 ill outside of the subject property boundaries or property lines must be identifred including City trees; individually locating all trees with a calliper measuring 100 mm or him

214 187 rage 4 ot 16 greater at breast height, all other vegetation to be identified in masses showing outlined of canopy created by the massing; the proposed final elevations of the Site; the location and dimensions of all proposed land disturbance; the location and dimensions of all temporary soil or dirt stockpiles; the location, dimensions, design details, estimated costs and design calculations of all construction Site control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this By-law; a schedule of the anticipated starting and completion dates of each land disturbance or land developing activity including the installation of construction Site control measures needed to meet the requirements of this By-law; provisions for the maintenance of the Site control measures during construction; the scale of drawing; and any other necessary information with respect to the Site Every Control Plan accompanying an application for a Permit under this By-law must be certified by a professional engineer who is licensed to practice in the Province of Ontario or any other qualified person approved by the Director Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, the Director may, at his or her sole discretion, waive the requirement for a Control Plan or any part thereof, and/or may reduce the fee for a Permit under this By"law in appropriate works, after teking into consideration the proposed works, the anticipated impact on the Site and the surrounding environment. " 2.8. The Director may, prior to the issuance of a Permit under this By-law, require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the City to provide security for an Applicant's obligations under this By-law and any Pennit issued, and such requirements as the Director considers necessary to ensure that the work which is the subject of standards and practice, this By-law and the terms and conditions" of the Permit, which agreement may be registered on title. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any such agreement on behalf of the City The Director shall issue a Topsoil Removal Permit or Site Alteration Permit, as the case may be, where: the Director is satisfied that the lands which are the subject of the Application are not within a prohibited area under Section 2.13 or Section 2.14 of this By-law: the Director is satisfied that the Applicant has complied or will comply with all requirements of this By-law; the Applicant has entered into an agreement, as referred to in Section 2.8 of this By-law, if required by the Director, and has performed all of its obligations under the agreement whlch are required to be performed prior to the issuance of the Permit pursuant to this By-law; the Director is satisfied that the Proposed Grade and resulting Drainage pattern, the proposed design of any Retaining Wall, the type of Fill proposed to be used, if any, and the proposed method of the Placing and Dumping offill, altering of the Grade, or removing of Topsoil, are all in accordance with proper engineering standards and practices;

215 ,.;;; the Director is satisfied that any Fill to be used includes: 188 a) for industrial and commercial sites, only Soil, stone, sod or other material acceptable to the Director and that such material is clean and free of any glass, plastics, termites, rubber, metals, liqui~ garbage andlor contaminants; b) for all other sites, only Soil and that such material is clean and free of any glass, plastics, rubber, metals, liqui~ termites, garbage, concrete, asphalt andlor contaminants; The City has the authority to require the random testiog of any Fill prior to its placement upon, or removal from, the Site. The testiog shall be undertaken by a qualified consultant retained by the City. The Owner/Applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the testiog the Director is satisfied that the proposed Placing or Dumping of Fill, altering of the Grade or removing of Topsoil, will not result in: a) erosion; b) blockage ofa watercourse; c) siltation in a watercourse or storm sewer; d) contamination of a watercourse; e) flooding or ponding; f) an undue detrimental effect on the natural environment of the area, including but not restricted to Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, wetlands, Lake Ontario shoreline, Burlington Bay shoreline; g) a detrimental effect on the quality or quantity of water in wells; h) hindering the orderly development of any lands; i) a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent lots; or j) a loss in agricultural lands in the Rural Planning Area of the City the Director is satisfied the Site will be rehabilitated to a condition which is substantially similar to or improved from the condition of the Site prior to the undertaking of the work which is the subject of the Permit the Director is satisfied that the location, height and slope of any proposed berm is acceptable The Director may impose terms and conditions and design guidelines upon the issuance of any Permit. In addition to any other terms or conditions or design guidelines that may be imposed by the Director, Permits shall be issued subject to the terms and conditions set out in Schedule "C" and guidelines as set out in Schedule "F" to this By-law uuless exempted in wtiting by the Director The Director may require as a condition of any Permit issued pursuance to this By-law, that a Retaining wall be constructed where: a) Erosion onto abuttiog lands may occur as a result of the work which is the subject of the Permit; or b) The Finished Grade of the Site is of a higher elevation at a property line than that of the Existing Grade at the same property line of abuttiog lands Where a Permit has been issued pursuant to this By-law, no person shall undertake the work which is the subject of the Permit except in accordance with the Permit Application, plans, documents, and other information submitted to the City upon which the Permit was issued and in accordance with the terms and conditions and design guidelines of the Permit Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, the Director shall not issue a Permit under this Bylaw with respect to lands in the City of Burlington defined and designated as an "Environmentally Sensitive 7f")'l/?fll "

216 ... ""'5'"' v V-L.I. V Area" by the City's Official Plan or the Region of Hal ton's Official Plan, without the approval of CounciL Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, the Director shall not issue a Permit under this Bylaw with respect to lands in the City of Burlington defined and designated as a "Fill and/or Flood Regulated Area" by Conservation Halton pursuant to Ontario Regulation 150/90, without the approval of Conservation Halton Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall Place or Dump, or cause or permit the Placing or Dumping of Fill, on any lands for the purpose of outside storage, unless the outside storage of such Fill on such lands is permitted by the applicable zoning by-law of the City Where the Director refuses to issue a Site Alteration Permit or a Topsoil Removal Permit, the applicant shall be informed in writiog of the refusal by the Director. The Director may reconsider the application if additional information or documentation required by the Director is submitted by the applicant Notwithstanding the issuance of a Permit pursuant to this By-law, an applicant and/or Owner shall comply with all other applicable legislation An applicant for a Permit pursuant to this By-law, or his or her authorized agent, shall, where a Permit has been issued, request the Director to make inspections at the commencement and completion of the work which is the subject of the Permit, and shall request such further inspection as may be required by the Director Any Permit issued pursuant to this By-law, shall be valid for a period of I year from the date of issuance A Permit which has expired may be renewed by the Director within a six month period from the date of expiry upon the making of a written request to the Director accompanied by a payment of one-half of the original permit fee, provided that the proposed work which was the subject of the Permit, has not been revised. A Permit which has been renewed in accordance with this section shall thereafter be treated as a new Permit except that it shall not again be renewed If the Site for which a Permit has been issned is transferred while the Permit remains in effect and outstanding the new Owner shall prior to the closing of the traosfer: provide the City with its written commitment to comply with all of the conditions under which the Permit was issued; and provide security in a form and amount acceptable to the Director, at which time any security previously provided by the original Permit holder pursuant to this By-law shall be released; and failing which the Permit shall be deemed to be cancelled as of the date of the traosfer In addition to the other requirements of this By-law, no person shall Place or Dump, or cause or permit the Placing or Dumping of Fill on, or alter or cause or permit the altering of the Grade of, or remove or cause or permit the removing of any Topsoil from, any lands in the City of Burlington, including the shoreline of Lake Ontario or Burlington Bay, or any lands which are submerged under any watercourse or other body of water, unless; it is done at the request of or with the consent of the Owner of the Site where the Fill is to be Placed or Dumped, the Grade altered or the Topsoil removed; all fill to be used includes only Soil, stone, sod or other material acceptable to the Director and that such material is clean and free of any glass, plastics, rubber, metals, termites, liquid, garbage and and/or contaminants; the Drainage system for the Site is provided in accordance with this By-law and any Permit httpj/ him '7!')") /'fa1 ')

217 rage! 01 Ib issued pursuant thereto and as otherwise required by law, and in accordance with proper engineering standards and practices and will not result in Erosion, blockage, siltation or contamination of a watercourse, Flooding or P onding; the Fill is Placed or Dumped, any Retaining wall containing such Fill is erected, the Grade is altered, or the Topsoil is removed, in such a manner that no Flooding, Ponding, or other adverse effects are caused on other lands Every person to whom a Permit is issued pursuant to this By-law shall: provide a Retaining Wall where required by the Director which does not encroach upon abutting lands, either above or below existing grade, and such Retaining Wall shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Director; ensure that the Finished Grade surface is protected by sad, turf, seeding for grass, vegetation, asphalt, concrete or other similar means, or combination thereof, ensure that Fill shall not be Placed or Dumped around the perimeter of any existing building to an elevation higher than 150 millhnetres below the ground floor level of such building, unless such building and its foundation walls are raised in a manner satisfactory to the Director; ensure that no trench in which piping is laid forming part of the Drainage system shall be covered and backfilled until the work has been inspected and approved by the Director or an Inspector; provide and maintain such protection for trees as may be required by the Director; provide and maintain siltation control measures as may be required by the Director; ensure that the work which is the subject of the Permit does not soil or otherwise foul any municipal roads and in the event that this occurs, ensure that the road or roads affected are cleaned to the satisfaction ofthe Director within twenty-four hours of any request by the Director for such cleaning; ensure that all conditions of the Pennit issued pursuant to this by-law and any requirements of this By-law are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director. 3. EXEMPTIONS 3.1. The City does not require a permit when undertaking works on City owned land or easements in favour of the City or when undertaking works on any other lands in which the City may have an interest Permits are not required for site alterations and/or the removal oftopsoil where engineering drawings for a plan of subdivision, complete with all applicable securities, have been received in full, or where a full Site Plan Application has been received. In both cases an erosion and sediment control plan, approved by the Director, will be required before undertaking any land disturbance The provisions of this By-law do not apply to, 3.3. L activities or matters undertaken by a municipality or a local board of a municipality; the placing or dumping offill, removal or topsoil or alteration of the grade of land imposed as a condition to the approval of a site plan, a plan of subdivision or a consent under section 41, 5 r or 53, respectively, of the Planning Act or as a requirement of a site plan agreement or subdivision agreement entered into under those sections; htm

218 the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land imposed as a condition to a development permit authorized by regulation made under section }O.2 of the Planning Act or as a requirement of an agreement entered into under that regulation;, the placing or dumping offill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land undertaken by a transmitter or distributor, as those terms are defined in section 2 of the Electricity Act, 1998, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a transmission system or a distribution system, as those terms are defined in that section; the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade ofland undertaken on land described in a licence for a pit or quarry or a permit for a wayside pit or wayside quany issued under the Aggregate Resources Act; the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of Jand undertaken on land in order to lawfully establish and operate or enlarge any pit or quarry on land, (i) that has not been designated under the Aggregate Resources Act or a predecessor of that Act, and (ii) on which a pit or quarry is a permitted land use under a by-law passed under section 34 of the P ianning Act; 3.3,7. the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land undertaken as an incidental part of drain construction under the Drainage Act or the Tile Drainage Act, as may be permitted as prescribed by regulation The provisions of this By-law do not apply to the removal of topsoil as an incidental part of a normal agricultural practice including snch removal as an incidental part of sod-farming, greenhouse operations and nurseries for horticultural products, bnt shall not include land contouring areas of greater than 1 ba. or alterations of ground elevations by more than O.Sm The exception in section 3.4 respecting the removal of topsoil as an incidental part of a normal agricultural practice does not include the removal oftopsoil for sale, exchange or other disposition If a regulation is made under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act respecting the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land in any area of ihe municipality, a by-law passed under this section is of no effect in respect of that area. 4. ENFORCEMENT 4.1. The administration, and enforcement of this By-law shall be performed by the Director and his or her designates and by those persons designated as Inspectors under Schedule "D" to this By-law. The Director and the Inspectors shall have all powers necessary to carry out the administration and enforcement of this By-law, including the power to enter npon and inspect any lands to which this By-law applies Where an Ovvller or any other person is in contravention of this By-law, or any term or condition or design guideline of a Permit issued under this By-law, the Director may make an Order directing that the Owner or such person cease the work which is the subject of the contravention and/or require work to be done to corrcct the contravention, to the satisfaction of the Director, within ten (10) 'days of the issuance of the Order. ~, Where a Permit has been issued and an O'Wller or Applicant is in contravention of this By-law, or any term or condition or design guideline of a Permit issued under this By-law, the Director may make an Order directing the Owner or Applicant, within ten (10) days of the issuance afthe Order, to take such steps as are nec~ssary so 1/f.-7flrn htm

219 that the work which was the subject of the Permit is completed in accordance with the Pennit Application, plans, documents and other infoj;mation upon which the Permit was issued under this By-law and in accordance with the terms and conditions and design guidelines of the Permit Any person to whom an Order is issued pursuant to this By-law shall comply with the tenns of such Order Where the Owner to whom an Order is issued fails to perform the work required by the Order, the City may perfonn such work at the Owner's e:\:pense and may recover the cost incurred in doing such work in like manner as municipal taxes An Owner of a Site or any other person shall permit designated Inspectors under this By-law, to enter on to the Site for the purposes of this By-law, including for the purpose of inspection to ensure compliance with this By-law and to enforce this By-law An Applicant shall not submit or cause or permit an Application for a Permit to be submitted to the City which is misleading or contains false information. Where it is discovered or revealed that the holder of a Permit issued under this By-law has provided misleading. or false information on the Application for a Permit, as determined by the Director, the said Permit shall be revoked by the Directed and the Permit holder shall forthwith cease all work which was the subject of the revoked Permit 4.8. Every person other than a corporation who contravenes any provision oftills By-law is' guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for every day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues to a fine of not more than $10,000 for a first offence and not more than $25,000 for any subsequent conviction, as provided for by Section 144 (16) of the Municipal Act 4.9. Everycorporation which contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for every day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues to a fme of not more than $50,000 for a first offence and $100,000 for any subsequent conviction as provided for by Section 144 (17) of the Municipal Act 5. GENERAL 5.1. In the event that any provision or part of a provision in this By-law is found to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, then the particular provision or part thereof shall be deemed to be severed from the remainder of the By-law and all other provisions or parts thereof shall remain in full force and effect and shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. ENACTED AND PASSED this 13 th day of January; MAYOR: CITY CLERK: SCHEDULE "A' TIlE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BT.JR.ll.,NGTON APPLICATION FOR A SITE ALTERATION PERlvlIT OR TOPSO.ll., REMOVAL PERlvlIT THIS APPLICATION IS AUTHORIZED BY BY-LAW No httpj! Men

220 ..I. a.t,c;; lv UI1Q 193 LO PERMITNO: 2.0 ATTACHMENTS - THIS APPLICATION MUST BE ACCO:MP Al'ITED BY:./ copies of a Control Plan certified by a Professional Engineer or other qualified person../ The application fee../ Security in a form and amount acceptable to the Director ofengineeriug*../ Owner's authorization if Applicant is not the Owner../ Phase I, II and ill Environmental Site Assessment reports as required by the Director of Engineering*. *These items, if applicable, may be requested after submission of the application. 3.0 PROPERTYLOCATION: PROPERTY SIZE (in hectares):, 5.0 NAlV1E OF PROPERTY OWNER: ADDRESS: - PHONE: FA-X: EMAJL: 6.0 NAME OF AGENT: ADDRESS: PHONE: EMAJL: FAX: 7.0 WORK SCHEDULE: START DATE: END DATE: CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, 8.0 CONSULTING ENGIN"EERS: ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: ",<'-:- 9.0 CONTRACTOR'S NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: lo.o DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED WORKS. FAX: httpj/v{ww.burjincton.calcjerkslhv-18w,/htmllh-?om htm

221 r<lge 11 or IF APPLICABLE, DESCRlBE THE COMPOSmON OF FILL BElNG DUMPEDIPLACED: 12.0 DOES lilly PART OF THE SITE CONTAlN A WATERCOURSE, SHORELINE, FILL OR FLOOD REGULATED AREA, AS ADMJNISTERED BY THE CONSERATION AtJTI10RITY? YES NO ---'DON'T KNOW 13.0 IF YES, HA VB YOU CONFIRi\1ED TIllS VlITIITHE CONSERVATION AU1HORITY? YES (please attach correspondence) NO The undersigned hereby applies for a Site Alteration Permit or Topsoil Removal Permit pursuant to the provisions of City ofburiington By-law and agrees to comply in all aspects with the requirements of Bylaw The undersigned hereby grants employees of the City of Burlington permission to enter the subject land to inspect the proposed work that the permit applies. Pursuant to the By-law , the undersigned hereby acknowledges that the sole responsibility for the completion of the work undertaken as part of this application rests entirely with the Owner. The undersigned also agrees that the total costs of all works will be entirely the responsibility of the Owner. The undersigned certifies to the City that any and all Fill used in completing any Site Alteration contains no contaminants within the meaning of the Environmental Protection Act, RS.O. 1990,c. E.19. The undersigned hereby forever releases and agrees to indemnify.and save harmless the City, its employees, representatives, agents and contractors, from and against all claims, demands, damages, causes of action, costs, expenses and other liabilities of any nature, which may arise in the event that the Fill is determined to contain contaminants. DATE SIGNATURE OF OViiNERIAPPLICANT If an agent is being used, the Owner must also complete the following: 1, being the registered Owner of the subject -. Site(s) hereby authorize ---, -:- --::--_.,-_to prepare, submit, and (lype or print name of agent) act on my behalf with respect to this application.

222 1:'age 1L ot DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER Personal Information on this form is collected under the authority of The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O c.25 as amended and will be used to process applications and issue permits for site alterations and topsoil removal. Questions about this collection should be directed to: Senior Environmental Engineer, Engineering Department, 426 Brant Street, Burlington, ON, L7R 3Z6, , extension 7576 OFFICE ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES ONLY A. LETIER OF CREDIT A1vfOUNT: -=-=--==-=- ----, B. PERMIT FEE:..,-,::-:-:c=-c RECEjPTNO., C. DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL: D. DATEPERMITISSUcD: EXPIRY DATE: SCHEDTJLE "B" 1.0 SITE ALTERATION PERMIT AND TOPSOIL REM:OV AL PERJvilT FEES The Fee for processing, administration and inspection for a Permit shall be as defined below. SffE ALTERATION Permit Fee Renewal Fee after Permit has expired 1) Alteration of a greater than 0.2 ha. site $ $25.00Iha $250 2) Single residential $80.00 $40 property (Lot area less than 0.2 ha) 3) Property less than 0.2 ha $80.00 $40 containing a drainage easement or catch basin and/or adjacent to a watercourse or shoreline TOPSOIL REMOVAL $ $250 $ hectare 2.0 SECuKITY FOR SITE CONTROL MEASURES An irrevocable Letter of Credit or cash may be required by the Director to cover 100% of the estimated cost to: maintain site controls; stabilize the site and undertake other works. The Letter of Credit is to be in a form acceptable to the City Treasurer. htto:!lwvvw.burlinlrton.ca/cleth!lw-l~w<lhttn1ff;-?()n< ],ttn

223 J. UbI"... 1.") Vi 10 The Letter of Credit must remain in effect for full duration of the Permit. Any Letter of Credit and its subsequent renewal forms shall contain a clause stating mat thirty (30) days written notice must be given to the City prior to its expiry or cancellation. 196 In me event mat the Gity receives notice mat a Letter of Credit is expiring and will not be renewed and further or additional securities are not provided forlhwith, the City may draw on the current Letter of Credit at the discretion of me Director. The Permit holder agrees that any interest accruing on the realized cash security shall belong to me City and not to the Permit holder. 3.0 It is the responsibility of the Permit Holder to obtain me approval of me Director that me Site has been adequately reinstated and stabilized in accordance with this By-law, me plans accompanying me Permit and the terms and conditions and design guidelines of the Permit; and, to request mat me City carry out a fmal inspection of the Site and to obtain me approval of the Director mat this by-law and terms and conditions of the Permit have been complied with by the permit holder. 4.0 When me provisions of Section 3.0 above have been fully complied wim to the satisfaction of me Director, he or she shah release me Permit Holder's security.. PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. All Permit holders shall: SCHEDULE "C" 1.1 Install all control measures as identified in me approved Control Plan; 1.2 NotifY the Engineering Department for an inspection of the site control measures. Approval of me site control measures is required from the Engineering Department prior to commencing any land disturbance; 1.3 NotifY me Engineering Department within 48 hours of commencing any Land Disturbance; 1.4 Obtain permission in writing from the Director prior to modifying the Control Plan; 1.5 Matntain all road drainage systems, Stormwater drainage systems, control measures and omer facilities identified in me Control Plan; 1.6 Repair any siltation or Erosion damage to adjoining surfaces and drainageways resulting from land developing or disturbing activities; 1. 7 Inspect the construction control measures at least once per week and after each rainfall of at least 1 centimetre and mfl~e needed repairs; 1.8 Allow employees of me City to enter the Site for the purpose of inspecting for compliance wim the Control Plan or for performing any work necessary to bring me Site into compliance with the Control Plan; and 1.9 Matntain a copy of the Control Plan on me Site. 2. The City: 2.1 Upon me failure by me Permit holder to complete all or part of the works in me time stipulated in the Control Plan, may draw me appropriate amount from the securities posted and use the funds to arrange for the completion of the said works, or any part mereof; 1.i-m

224 2.2 Upon the failure by the Permit holder to repair or maintain a specific part of the works as requested by the City, and in the time requested, the City may at any time authorize the use of all or part of the securities to pay the cost of any part of the works "it may in its or their absolute discretion deem necessary; or In the case of emergency repairs or clean-up, the City may undertake the neoessary works at the exnense of the Permit holder and reimburse itself out of securities posted by the applicant or to add the cost of the ~orks to the real property tax roll to be collected in like manner as taxes. SCHEDULE"D" The following City employees or agents are hereby designated as Inspectors for the purposes of this By-law and authorized to carry out the administration and enforcement of this By-law: 1. Director of Engineering SCHEDULE "E" PER..MITS required under Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are required for, but not limited to: A. Any topsoil removal works on sites greater than 0.2 hectare in area; B. Altering of grade within 0.5 metres from the property line; C. Removal of vegetative cover on sites greater than 0.2 hectare in area; D. Alteration of grade on a property containing a drainage easement, catchbasin or that is next to a watercourse, Lake Ontario or Burlington Bay; E. Residential dwelling construction on an infilllot which is not exempt under Section oftms By-law; F. Proposed ponds in the Rural Planning Area of the City. Any proposed ponds in the Rural Planning Area of the City must comply with Schedule "G"; G. Proposed residential dwellings, agricultural buildings or other buildings in the Rural Planning Area of the City; PERMITS are not required for the removal of or installation of a swimming poo~ unless condition "B" above applies. SITE DESIGN GlJIDELIN""ES SCHEDULE "F" The following requirements shall be met on all Sites where a Permit is required: i Site Dewaterinf!: Water pumped from the Site shall be treated by temporary sedimentation basins, grit chambers, sand filters, upflow chambers, swirl concentrators or other appropriate controls. 2. Drain Inlet Protection: All rear lot storm drain inlets or any other inlets, as the Director considers necessary, httn:!iw-ww.butlinqton.ca/clerlc"mv-18w.,fhtmllh-')()()-:{ htm

225 rag" U or 10 shall be protected with filter fabric, or equivalent barriers meeting acceptance by the Director Site Erosion Control: The following criteria apply to Land Disturbances that result in runoff leaving the Site: 1) Runoff.from adjacent areas passing through the Site shall be diverted around disturbed areas, if practical. Otherwise, the channel shall be protected by filter fences being placed along the channel edges to reduce sediment reaching the channel. 2) All activities on the Site shall be conducted in a logical sequence to mjnjmize the area of bare soil exposed at anyone!hue. 3) Any soil or dirt storage piles containing more than one hundred cubic metres of material shall not be located within a downslope drainage leng"t.b of less than ten (10) metres to a roadway or drainage channel. If remaining for more than thirty (30) days, said soil or dirt storage piles shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, tarps or other means. Erosion from soil or dirt storage piles which will be in existence for less than thirty (30) days shall be controlled by filter fence barriers around the pile. 4) Runofffrom the entire disturbed area on the Site shall be controlled as follows: (a) All disturbed ground left inactive shall be stabilized by seeding, sodding, mulching or covering, or other equivalent control measure. The period of!hue of inactivity shall be at the discretion of the Director but shall not exceed 30 days or such longer pcriod as deemed advisable atthe discretion of the Director;. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph 3( 4)(a), a permit holder or applicant for a Permit who has applied for but not yet received a building permit or any other necessary Permit or agreement may be granted an extension to the permitted period of inactivity, at the discretion of the Director, provided that said applicant or permit holder provjdes satisfactory proofthat he has made his best efforts to have said building or other necessary permit issued;. (c) For Sites located adjacent to existing residential areas, a sediment control fence may be required around the entire perimeter of the Site; (d)the sediment control guidelines prepared by Conservation Halton and the l:vfinistry of Natural Resources for the Province of Ontario are to be followed closely. (e) For Sites with extensive fill requirements, the'director<may waive the requirements for stabilization of disturbed land after thirty (30) days of inactivity provided.that the sediment control measures are implemented and maintained to the satisfaction of the Director. 5) All other conditions or restrictions as required by the Director. Administration: SCHEDULE"G" All pond applications on Agricultural and Rural zoned properties must be circulated to the Halton Agricultural Committee (HAAC) for comment prior to decision being made by the City of Burlington. Permits are not required for the dredging of existing ponds on Agricultural and Rural zoned properties, provided surface area of the pond is not increased, and the pond depth is not increased beyond its original depth. Design Criteria: htm '7i'l'iVlIl1'1

226 .1. u.s"'" LV U.i./.Q Pond surface area can be maximum of 1 % of the total area to be irrigated and have a maximum depth of:3 m with side slopes no steeper than 3: 1. Pond should be located a suitable distance from a water well or septic tile bed, acceptable to the Region of Halton Health Department -~ Proposed pond surface area Iargei than 1 % of the total area to be irrigated, or deeper than 3 m, can be considered providing a detailed water budget analysis is submitted prepared by a qualified professional acceptable to the Director htrn

227 TAB 24

228 200 Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.I of the Environmental Protection Act Ministry of the Environment April 15, 2011 PIBS # 7382eOl This is"'} Exhibit No....,) on the examination of: Jeff StCVeJ?.9X! Wfhrgim frir(xlfjv C(~ r rl fu(/'(q held on fl'!aj 11 g± I, ').DI'?, VICTORY VERBATIM Reporting Services Toronto, Ont. in

229 201 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... ii INTRODUCTION... iii HOW TO READ THESE TABLES iii Tables f to 5... iii Notes on Table 1....iv Noles on Table 6, 7, 8, &9... iv Table 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards... 1 Table 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition....4 Table 3: Full Deptb Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition... 7 Table 4: Stratified Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition Table 5: Stratified Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition Table 6 Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Soils in a potable Ground Water Condition Table 7: Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Soils in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition Table 8: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a \Vater Body in a Potable Groundwater Condition T:lhfe 9: Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m ofa \Vater Body in a Non-Potable Groundvlrater Condition II

230 202 INTRODUCTION This document, consisting of Tables 1 to 9, sets out the prescribed contaminants and the applicable site condition standards for those contaminants for the purposes of Part XV.l of the Environmental Protection Act. The Tables can be summarized as follows: Table I: Table 2: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition. Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8 Table 9 Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition. Stratified Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition. Stratified Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition. Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Soils in a Potable Ground Water Condition Generic Site Condition Standards for ShaHow Soils in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Potable Groundwater Condition Generic Site Condition Standards for Use within 30 m of a Water Body in a Non Potable Groundwater Condition HOW TO READ THESE TABLES Tables I to 9 set out prescribed contaminants by listing contaminants in the column of rows that has the heading row entitled "Contaminant". Tables I to 9 set out prescribed standards for these contaminants by indicating in the appropriate locations the mll'(imum concentrations of the contaminants in soil, ground water and sediment, which are expressed in a number that is to be read as IJg/g dry weight for soil and sediment, and as 1Jg/L for ground water, unless otherwise indicated in the table. Within Tables 2-7 separate values for each ofthe two soil texture groups are listed. The value for coarse soils is the one that is not bracketed, whereas the value for medium and fine textured soils is given within brackets. Where there are no bracketed values, the value applies to both soil groups. The standard for a property that is applicable for a type of property use in a particular medium, can be found in the row named for the contaminant and in the column that has the heading row that indicates the applicable medium and the type of property use for which the record of site condition is filed. A contaminant that is listed and for which the abbreviation "NN" appears in the cell, instead of a number representing a maximum concentration, is a contaminant for which a standard is not prescribed. The abbreviation "NN" means "no value". A contaminant that is listed and for which the abbreviation "N/A" appears in the cell, instead of a number representing a maximum concentration, is a contaminant for which a standard is not prescribed because no standard is required. The abbreviation "NI A" means "not applicable". Notes on Table 1 Table 1 sets out the "Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards". The soil standards in TabJe I are background values derived from the Ontario Typical Range values for iii

231 203 the land uses indicated and are considered representative of upper limits oftypical province-wide background concentrations in soils that are not contaminated by point sources. The groundwater standards in Table 1 were derived from the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Information System (pgmis) from to 2007 and from groundwater well surveillance data (DWSP) from For parameters where sufficient data was not available values have been derived from the most recent effects-based water criteria including Provincial Water Quality Objectives and the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards as upper limits and Method Detection Limit as a lower limit These values are considered to be generally achievable in site situations typical of background while providing a level of human health and ecosystem protection consistent with background conditions and protective of sensitive ecosystems. The sediment standards in Table 1 are the same standards (adverse effects-based) developed for the Table 8 and 9 for propelties within 30 m of a water body. These values are within the range of measured backgroimd sediment where data is available in the 1993 Sediment Guidelines and are considered to provide a level of human health and ecosystem protection consistent with background and protective of sensitive ecosystems. Notes on Table 6, 7, 8, and 9 Tables 6 and 7 are to be used in situations where there is less than 2 m of overburden above bedrock. They can also be used in situations where the QP is not satisfied that Tables 2 and 3 are suitable due to shallow depth to groundwater. Tables 6 and 7 were derived on the same basis as Tables 2 and 3 except that the calculation for dilution occurring in the aquifer is removed, and biodegradation between the groundwater and the basement is assumed to not bc occurring.. Tables 8 and 9 are to be used where all or part of a propelty lies within 30 m of a surface water body. These standards were derived with the objective of protecting surface water bodies from movement of soil directly into surface water to become sediment, and assuming that there is no dilution in the groundwater for the aquatic protection pathway. Additional notes 1) For all tables, the methyl naphthalene soil standard is applicable to both I-methyl naphtbalene and 2 -methyl naphthalene, with the provision that if both are detected the sum of the two concentrations cannot exceed the standard. 2) There are f:\vo boron parameters in the tables, one for a hot water extract (HWS) that is designed for protection of plants and soil invertebrates, and one for a total (mixed strong acid digest). The HWS boron can be used by itself for all surface soils, as plants are the most sensitive receptor for boron. For subsurface soils the total boron standard can be used by itself, since plant protection for soils below the root zone is not a significant concern. 3) Conditions can exist at a site for which the assumptions used to develop the generic criteria may not be valid. The QP must ascertain that tbc site conditions are appropriate for lise of the generic standards such that helshe can be comfortable with signing the certifications on the RSC. To assist the QP in recognizing the types of conditions that may be important in this respect the following examples are given: a) if the contaminated ZOlle has a volume larger than 340m3 or a source length or width greater than 13 metres then all pathways which employ source depletion or groundwater IV

232 204 transport (Soil to Nose, S-GWl, S-IA, S-OW3, GW2 and OW3 components of the standards) may be affected. b) if a high penneability zone is present in the vadose zone which provides a direct preferential pathway to the building then the soil properties assumed in the generic J&E modelling to detennine the S-IA and OW2 components of the standard may change. c) if the annual average of the capillary fringe of the water table is < 0.8 metres from the outer edge of the gravel crush of the building foundation, then the lox biodegradation factor assumed in the OW2 pathway may be non-conservative. d) if the average Organic Carbon content (foe) of soil above the water table is < then more contaminant may be in the water and gas phases than assumed in the generic standards. f) ifthere is a continuous source ofthe contaminant then the pathways which assume a depleting source (i.e., S-IA, S-GWI, and Soil to Nose) might be non-conservative. g) if there is a surface water body that could be affected by the property from contaminant migration via groundwater, and the surface water has total hardness less than 70 mg/l (as CaC0 3 ) andlor has ph less than 6.7, the aquatic protection values for some metals and pentachlorophenol may be non-conservative. In such cases, the QP may need to consider whether a site-specific estimate of hardness and ph resulting from mixing of groundwater and surface water is needed to estimate an appropriate aquatic protection value for this site. The existence of any of the above conditions does not necessarily indicate that the generic criteria are not valid for a given site. There are many interrelated parameters and factors that were used in the development of the generic standards, and in many cases one factor, such as any of those above, can be outweighed by differences in other factors in a manner that, overall, there is sufficient natural protection provided by the site. In addition, it must also bc considered that the component that drives the standard may not be affected by the particular limiting condition described above (e.g. a terrestrial ecological driver, but there are high penneable zones in the vadose zone). The QP should consider these types of factors in assessing the appropriateness of the use of the generic standards. v

233 205 TABLE 1: Full Depth Background Site Condition Standards Ice tone Ildcin Arsenic Barium Benzene Benzo[kJ Table I Contaminant Boron lo~ I Boron (total) I Carbon T Total VI Cobalt :on""r :,nnide :N-) DD lde ldt I Dieldrin 1,1'- 1,2-1,3-1,4-.3,3'-. l,l.,2-. 1,1-,1,2-ci' SoH (other man sediment) I Ground Water "gil I ("gil) V. '0' r Other mu~u, All Types of Property Use Community Property Property Uses Use Og3 0.: 0.0: I 210 O : o. NA 3( I o O ).0 ).05 O : O. a o 220 o. 0.: o. O. 0, , NA o. o o. l O U.O : O Page , I. I' 6101 o. o O. o NAJ ' : I 25 O. 3. O. 0.: O : 0.: 1.6 c o 0.05 Sediment ("gig) All Types of Property Uses O NV N' NV NY NY NV NV N' 0.6 NV NY NY o. 0.0, NY NY NY NV _N N N\ Nv N\ Nv 0.002

234 206 Table 1 Soil (other than sediment) Ground Water Sediment ~glg (~gil) (~glg) Contaminant ResidentiaI! Parkland/Institutional! Agricultural or Other Industrial/Commercial! All Types of All Types of Property Use Community Property Property Uses Property Uses Use Dicthyl Phthalate NV DimethYlUhthalate NV DimethYlohenol NV Dinitroohenol, 2, NV Dinirrotoluene, 2,4 & 2, NV Dioxane, 1, NV DioxinlFuran (TEO) NV Endosulfan NV Endrin Ethylbenzene NV Ethylene dibromide NV Fluoranthene OA 0.75 Fluorene Heptachlor O.o! NV Heptachlor E'ooxide Hexachlorobenzene om HCx3chiorobutadiene om NV Hexachlorocvclohexane Gamma NV Hexachloroethane NV Hexane (n) NV Indeno[1 2 3-cd}Oyrene Lead Mercury Methoxychlor NV Metbvl Ethyl Ketone NV Methyl Isobutyl Ketone NV Methyl Mercurv ** NV NV 0.12 NV Methyl {crt-butyl Ether (MTBE) NV Methylene Chloride NV Methlynaphthalene. 2-(1-) *** NV Molybdenum NV Naphthalene NV Nickel Pentachlorophenol NV Petroleum HYdrocarbons FI *u* NV Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2!O NV Petroleum Hydrocarbons F NV Petroleum Hydrocnrbons F NV Phenanthrene Phenol NV Polvchlorinated B-Y;henYis Pyrene 0.19 I Selenium NV Silver Styrene NV Tetrachloroethane. 1> 1.1, NV TetrachlQroethane, l,l,2,2~ NV Tetrachloroethylene NV Thallium 1 I 0.5 NV Toiuene NV Trichlorobenzene. 1,2, NV Trichloroethane, 1.1, NV Trichloroethane. 1,1, NV Trichloroethylene NV Trichlorofiuoromethane NV TrichfOfoohenol,2,4, NV Trichlorophenol.2,4, NV Uranium NV Vanadium NV Vinyl Chloride NV Page 2

235 207 Table 1 Soil (ether than sediment) Ground Water Sediment ~glg (pgjl) (pglg) Contaminant Residential! Parklan<illnstitutionall Agricultural or Other Industrial/Commercial! All Types of All Types of Property Use Community Property Use Property Uses Property Uses Xylene Mixture ,05 72 NY Zinc Electrical Conductivity (msjcm) NA NA Chloride NA NA NY Sodium Adsorption Ratio NA Sodium NA NA NA NY Notes ( ) Standard in bracket applies to medium and fine textured soils NN= No value derived. NfA::: Not applicable '* The boron standards are fof hot water soluble extract for an surface soils. For subsurface soils the standards are for total boron (mixed strong acid digest), since plant protection for soils below the root zone is not a significant concern. **Analysis for methyl mercury only applies when mercury (total) standard is exceeded >i-t* The methyl naphthalene standards are appliable to both l~methy! naphthallene and 2- methyl naphthalene, with the provision that if both are detected the sum of the two must not exceed the standard. *u* FI fraction does not include BTEX; however, the proponent has the choice as to whether or not to subtract BTEX from the analytical result. Page 3

236 208 TABLE 2: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Potable Ground Water Condition Table 2 Soil Standards (olher than sediment) Potable Ground Water.glg \ / "gil ~identjal! 0\.;, 'strial! AI! Types of Contaminant Agricultural or Other Parkland/Institutional CommercialJCommunity Property Property Use Property Use Property Use Use Acenaphthene (29) (29) AcenaphthyIene (0.17)0.15 (0.17) 0.15 (0.17) Acetone (28) 16 (28) 16 (28) Aldrin (0.11) Anthracene (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) Antimony (50).40 6 Arsenic II Barium Benzene (0.17) 0.21 (0.17)0.21 (0.4) Benz[alanthracene (0.63) 0.5 (0.63) Benzo[a}pyrene 0.Q Benzo[b JfIuoranthene Benzofgni1pcrylene (7.8) ) Benzork1fluoranthene Beryllium (5) 4 (5) 4 (10) 8 4 Biphenyl 1,1'~ (1.1)0.31 (Ll) 0.31 (210) Bis<2-ch!oroethyl)dher Bis(2~ch!oroisopropyJ)elher (1.8) 0.67 (L8) 0.67 (13) 1] 120 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 5 5 (35) Boron (liot Water Solub!e)* l NA Boron (total Bromodichloromcthane (1.9) l.5 (1.9) ].5 (1.9) Bromoform (0.26) 0.27 (0.26) 0.27 (1.7) Bromomethane Cadmium I Carbon Tetrachloride (0.12) 0.05 (0.12) 0.05 (0.71) 0.21 (5) 0.79 Chlordane ChloroaniHne po (U.5») 05 (0.53) 0.5 (0.53) Chiorobenzene (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) Chlorofonn (0.18)0.05 (0.18) 0.05 (0.18) 0.47 ( Chlorophenol. 2- (2) 1.6 (2) 1.6 (3.9) Chromium Total Chromium VI (10) 8 (10) 8 (10) 8 25 Chryscne (7.8)7 (7.8) Cobalt (loll) SO 3.8 Copper (ISO) 140 (180) 140 (300) Cyanide (CN-) Dlbcnz[a hlanthracene OJ 0.2 Dibromochloromcthane (2.9)23 (2.9) 23 (2.9) Dichlorobenzene, 1.2- (1.7) ) 1.2 (I. 7) Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (6)4.3 (6) 4.8 (12) Dichlorobenzene, la- (0.097) 0.OS3 (0.097) (0.57) Dichlorobenzldine, 3,3'- I I I 0.5 Dichlorodifiuorometh;:mc (25) 16 (25) 16 (25) DDD !O DDE (0.33) 0.26 (0.33) 0.26 (0.65) DDT I oms Dich!oroethane. I, j- (0.6) 0.47 (0.6) 0.47 (0.6) Diclllorocthane, 1, (5) ].6 DichlQroemviene, 1, (0.48) (14) 1.6 Dichloroethylene,!,2-cis- (2.5) 1.9 (2.5) 1.9 (2.5)1.9 (17) 1.6 Dichioroethvlene, 1.2-trans- (0.75) (0.75) (2.5) L3 (17) ].6 Dichloropnenol,2,4- (0.27) 0.19 (0.27) 0.19 (0.27) Dichloroprooane, 1;l- (0.085) 0.05 (0.085) 0.05 (0.6&) Dichlorooropene,l,3- (O.OSl) 0.05 (O.OS!) 0.05 (0.081) D.D Dieldrin (0. III Page 4

237 209, Table 2 Contaminant Soil Standards (other than sediment).,,;. Residentiail Industrial! All Types of Agricultural or Other ParklandRnstitutional ComrnercialfCommunity Property Property Use Property Use Property Use Use : 31 (53) (53) (53) S! Q ]( \ L o:os 0.69 (6,) L6\ (69) (i52 (0.38) (69) ( LOS I OA I (520) ' 3d45 lin MerellN (L8) ) 0.27 (20)3.9 (J) 0.29 I Methvl Me,elleY" ro:0094)(]084'(0.0094)0.0( (0.0094) O. fmctliyi D L4) 0.75 (.75 (2. I L hennl,ci,1oridc ( 11.6 :>_n., u, 14 )30 (651 (1501 (0.75) 6. nm ) 40 (2 ) 9.6 (340) (6 (2500)1700 (6600) 3300 (l6ll: 9.4 u I II 100 L soc 5' S9C ~. 1 I 1,4- llmn'nm 7!<_, 1-.. Il (L2) Ii:! 10.05) IB\ (2.9) )0. (0.05) c:. c i (0.022\ 0.02 " (50) (43) 34 (0.1 I) (0.094) 0.05 (2.5) (9) 6.4 (16)3.2 (I2) 6.1 (0.1 ) 0.05 ( ( 19. ) (025) I 2' 7C 20[ (5) 4. IS) 1. IS( S ( 6. Page 5

238 210 - Table 2 Soil Standards (other than sediment) uglg Potable Ground u;,i Residential! Contaminant Agricultural or Other ParklandlInstittltiona! Property Use Propeny Use Industrial! Commercial/Community Property Use All Types of Property Use vlene Mixture (25) 3. (25) 3.1 inc leelrical O. O. hloride N. NA odium 1 Ratio,Sodium N) NA Noles ( ) Standard in bracket applies to medium and fine textured soils NN= No value derived. N/A =. Not applicable flo) NA,: NA 300 HOD NA NA The boron standards are for hot water soluble extract for all surface soils. For subsurface soils the standards are for totai boron (mixed strong acid digest). since plant protection for soils below the foot lone is not a significant concern. **Analysis for methyl mercury only applies when mercury (total) standard is exceeded *** The methyl naphtjlalene standards are appliable to both l~methyl naphthallene and 2- methyl naphthalene, with the provision that if both are detected the sum of the twq must not exceed the standard.,.u. FI fraction docs not include BTEX; however, the proponent has the choice as to whether or not to subtract BTEX from the analytical result PageS

239 211 TABLE 3: Full Depth Generic Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition Table 3 Soil Standards (other than sediment).gf, Non- Pnmble Ground.gIL Contaminant Residential! Park!andiInstitutional Property Use Industriat! Commercial/Community Property Use All Types of Property Use Acetone : Aldrin "senic '"ium le02ene : Benzo lenzolk, 1.1' Bis(2-<I)ether loron :Hot~ 'oron :toml :arbon 2- otal Cohalt Copper I Cyanide (CN-) I Dibenz[a i I D 2-. 1,3-1,4-3,3'- 1,1-, 1,2- (: 1.9 (0.1: f (0.17) O. (0.63) O. O (7.8) (5) 4 iu) 0.31 O. (1.8) 0.6, I. 1: 1 (0.26) 0,2' O. (0.12)0.0: 0.05 ( (0. 16 (10) (7.8)" 2: (ISO) 0.( (4.3) 3. (6)4.8 (0.091) :25) 1_ (0.33) (0.1"')0.15 (28) 16 (0.1 i (0.7' 10 6 (004) 0.: o. o. (!O), (210) 5: (14) II (35) (1.7) 0., (1.5) I (0. (10) 9. (loo) S (300) , (8.5) (12) 9. (0.841 I (25) (1700) 600 l.s A (430) (2200) N (770) 38 (56) (SA) 0.7l 2' 40C. 630 (22) 6, g, 66 ~ 9600 (67) , , Dieldrin I-ds- i-trans- 1,,2- (30 (0.75) 0.08 :2.1) I (0.085) 0.0 (0.083) 0, (' (, (0.68)0.1, (0.21)0.18 (0 11) (l4( (45) Page 7

240 212 J I- Table 3 Soil Standards (other than sediment) ugl, yfifl.. : Ground Contaminant Residentiall ParklandfInstitutional Property Use fndustriall Commercial/Community Property Use All Types of Property Use I Diethyl ~ O. 0.. (440)390 (66) 59 _ : Endrin r Epoxide 'ila.nma- 0.0: 0.6! _(!')62 l.i' 0.0, ).5, (0.014) U.Ut: (M63) (Om ljl < (0.38) (19) (69) o O. o (Q ) (Q!,o: (O~4..LS 0.48 (O.8~ 40C..25 ~ J~QO)' exane (n) 34) 2.: (520)51 ndenor 2 (O. &) O. (0.9: '.76 ( ~L~ead +-,,",~12+- ~~II~~ ~72~5 Mercury (LS) 02 (20) ) 029 I Methvl Ethyl Ketone >1ethyl Isohutyl Ketone >1ethyl I" vlethyl, Ellier (MTBE) I Nickel If hellol Pyrene Silver ;tyrene l1tallium Toluene I Vinyl,2,(1-). I,,2-. 1.,2,2-,2,4-,j- 2,4,5- ~4, J4:!Ll6 (88: ) :!1QQ()Q (4.3) 1. (210) 31 (580000: D.0094) (0.0094).OC 0.1: ( (1400l19C (0,96) 0, _65 Jll1S:)~6 (130) (65: I"V) (5600) 231 (H: 9,4 ~ (: (0.' 0,0: (2.3) '.2,. (6) 2, (L4) 0,36.~ (0.52), (i (4.2) (o,~)0,02 Page 8 (28)9,6 (340) [65 ;0) (2: (6' 16) Ll 96 5, :50) 43) m.1i10.0: (OJ)91) 0,1 211 (78) (16) 3. (l2)6.! (0,1I) 0,0 (0.61) 0.9 (5.8' (0.25) 0.0 soc,.10c SS( IZOOC (15) 7.8.1,: ( ~ 1:illd 7) L6.J.J~..EQQ ~ ~ ( :1) 0.51

241 213 Table 3 Soil Standards (other than sediment) /lgfg Non- Potable Ground Water ~gjl Contaminant Residential! Park!andJInstitutional Property Use Industrial{ CommercialfCommunity Property Use All Types of Property Use Xylene 1\,1ixture (25)3.1 Zinc. 340 Electrical Conductivity (ms!cm) 0,7 Chloride NA Sodium Adsomtion Ratio 5 Sodium NA Notes ( ) Standard in bracket applies to medium and fine textured soils NN= No value derived. N/A:::: Not applicable (30) NA 12 NA #NfA NA * The boron standards are for hot water soluble e.xtract for all surface soils. For subsurface soils the standards are for totat boron (mixed strong acid digest), since plant protection for soils below the root lone is not a significant concern. *'" Analysis for methyl mercury only applies when mercury (total) standard is exceeded *1!'<f The methyl naphthalene standards are appliable to both l methyi naphthallene and 2- methyl naphthajene, with the provision that ifboth are detected the sum of the two must not exceed the standard. ***. Fl fraction does not include BTEX; however, the proponent has the choice as to whether or not to subtract BTEX from the analytical result. Page 9

242 214 TABLE 4: Stratilled Site Condition Standards in a Potahle Ground Water Condition Table 4 Contaminant Soil Standards (other than sediment) Potable Ground Waler ~glg ~gil Residentiall Parklandlinstitutional Industrial! CommercialfComrnunity Property Use Propcrty Use All Types of Property Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Use Acenaphthene (29) 7.9 (29) 7.9 (29) 21 (29) Acenaphthy!ene (0.17) 0.15 (0.17) 0.15 (0.17) 0.15 (0.17) 0.15 I Acetone (28) 16 (28) 16 (28) 16 (28) Aldrin (O.ll) Anthracene (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) Antimony (50) Arsenic Barium 390 (8600) (8600) Benzene (0.17) 0.21 (0.17) 0.21 (0.4) 0.32 (1.3) Benz a anthracene (0.63) I Benzo ajpvrene Bcnzo b}fjuorantijene Benzo[ghilpervlene (7.8) Benzo klfluoranthene Beryllium (5) 4 60 (10) Biphenyll,t'- ( (831 1I (210) 52 (210) Bis(2-chlorocthyJ)ether Bis(2-chloroisovrooyl}ethcr (1.8) 0.67 (13) II (13)11 (13) II 120 Bis(2-ethythexyl)phthalatc 5 (1200)830 (35) 28 (1200) Boron (Hot Water Soluble)* 1.5 NA 2 NA NA Boron (total) NA ( NA (7900) Bromodichloromethunc (1.9) 1.5 (1.9) 1.5 (1.9) 1.5 (1.9) Bromoform (0.26) 0.27 (0.26) 0.27 (1.7) 0.61 (2.7) 2 25 Bromomethane Cadmium Carbon Tetrachloride (0.12) 0.05 (0.12) 0.05 (0.71) 0.21 (0.71) 0.43 (5) 0.79 Chlordane Chloroaniline p- (0.53) 0.5 (0.53) 0.5 (0.53) 0.5 (0.53) Chforobenzene (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) Chloroform (0.18) 0.05 (O.IS) 0.05 (0.18) 0.47 (0.19) 0.85 (22) 2.4 Chlorophenol,2- (2) 1.6 (5.1)3.? (3.9)3.1 ( Chromium Tota! 160 (18000) (18000) IlOOO 50 Chromium VI (10) 8 40 (10) Chrysene (7.8) (28) Cohalt (100) Copper (180) (300) Cyanide (CN-) Dibenzf a h Janthracene Dibromoch!oromethane (2.9' 2.3 (2.9) 2.3 (2.9) 2.3 (2.9) Dichlorobenzene, 1,2- (1.7) 1.2 (1.7) 1.2 (1.7) 1.2 (1.7) Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (6) 4.8 (34) 24 (12) 9.6 (34) Dichlorobenzene, 1,4- (0.097) (0.097) (0.57) 0.2 (0.5i) Dichlorobenzidine,3,3'- 1 I 1 I 0.5 Dichlorodifluoromethnne (25) 16 (25) 16 (25)16 (25) ]6 590 DDD ]0 DDE (0.33) (0.65) DDT JIO 2<8 Dichloroethane. 1,1- (0.6) 0,471 (0.6) 0.47 (0.6) 0.47 (0.6) Dichloroethane, t, (0.05) (5) 1.6 Dichloroethylene, I,! (OAS) (0.53) 0.12 (14) 1.6 Dichlorocl.hylene, 1.2-cis- (2.5) 1.91 (2.5) 1.9 (2,5) 1.9 (2.5) 1.9 (17) 1.6 Dichloroethvlene. 1,2-trans- (0.75) (0.75) (2.5) l.l (2.5) 1.9 (17) 1.6 Dichlorophenol, 2,4- (0.27) 0.19\ (0.27) 0.19 (0.27) 0.19 (0.27) O.!9 20 Dichloropropane, L2- (0.085) (0.085) 0.05 (0.68) 0.16 (0.74) Dichloropropene,I.3- (0.081) 0.05 (0.081) (0.08 I) (O.OS!) Dieldrin (0.12) o.llt (0.11) (0.12) Page 10

243 215 Table 4 Soil Standards (other than sediment) uelg Potable Ground ~i i Contaminant Property Use Property Use All Types of Property Surface Soil Surface Soil : Soil Use )Ieth" ndrln thylene Fluorene Hexane In) Inileno[1.cad.2.4-,Gammahy Eth,,1 Ketone I Isobutvl Ketone Mercury '*. hyl I Ether (MTBE) ~Iekel Phenol vrene elonium,iver Styrene,Iuene Jnmjum Vinyl Chloride II-} " 1,1,1.2-1,1.2,2-1. 0,4-.! ,4,6-, FI*'**,F2, F3,f4 O. (53) (2.9) 0.: l, O. (1.6) ' (043) 0.3: 120 (1.8) (4.3) ( 0.75 '(0.75) (130) (~ 15600\ ) O..-l (l.2) (0.05' (] 13. (0.52) ) 4 (: ;) 4.4 (0.022)0.1 1i-: \ \ I. (0.079) (1:6\ 0: " I O.OR~ 34\: 0.96 lorn II "I (la Ie i200. (4.6ll.ill ' m.05\ O. 12(){ ~!la' (3,4' ) )4.9 i : c: : fi6' O. O. (53) 38 (29): (7.7)7.: (0.0026) ( (0.079)1. (I. 11. ).05 34: 24 69)62 G < (4) 2.1 o ' I..041 (0., 1)310'11) 0.06 (0.6) ~'.O'2+_~(OJ)6",,31))!:!,'1 0~.OS6!- ~ a.69} I ~!---~~(8~8)~---~15'220~)~ i~~.. 7~6r---~~--~~~ 120 (20) : (2. ) S) 9.6 ( : '00, (j 6.1 IO.lI)QoS ( (II 12.' 101 (30) (310)150 (210) 64 (0.0094) (' (330) (0 (0 ~901 (9),. (22) (12)1. (0.13) 0.06& (0.69) 0.55 (5.8) 4 (13) 9.1 (2.9), 10 (I) I (17) (5)4.: (5) (0.022) 6.01 I. (O.ill0.032 (1.7) 0.5 Page

244 216 Table 4 Soil Standards (other than sediment) uv, Potable Ground pglt Contaminant Property Use Property Use, SoH Sua-ace SoH : Soil All Types of Property Use viene Mixture (25) 3. (ZS).. (30) 26 (30) 26 ine 340 (24000) 151' (24oo0)15QOO, (ms/em) O. NA IA NA hioride NA NA NV I Ratio i: NA lodlum NA IV NA NV otes ( ) Standard in bracket applies to medium and fine textured soils NN= No value derived. NfA = Not applicable 'I: The boron standards are for hot water soluble extract for an surface soils. For subsurface soils the standards are for total boron (mixed strong acid digest). since plant protection for soils below the root zone is not a significant concern. *'* Analysis for methyl mercury only applies when mercury (total) standard is exceeded **'. The methyl naphthalene standards are appliabte to both J~methyJ naphtballene and 2- methyl naphthalene, with the provision that if both are detected the sum of the two must not exceed the standard. **** Fl fraction does not include BTEX; however, the proponent has the choice as to whether or not to subtractbte)c from the analytical result. I NI Page 12

245 217 TABLE 5: Stratified Site Condition Standards in a Non-Potable Ground Water Condition Table 5 Contaminant Soil Standards (other than sediment) "gig Property Use Property Use All Types of Property Surface Soil Subsurface Soil Surface Soil Usc,cetone ddrin uscnic 'arium 'enzene ilpervlene,oron' lot Boron (total) Carhon T, :obalt '11,1'-.2- Total VI 'oppor yan'de (CN-) I hj c,2- DDD DDE DDT i! Dieldrin 4-,2-.3- ( (0.74). 7.: 3901 (0.17) ).2 (0.63) : O. (7.8) 6. O. (5) ILl) 0.31 O. (1.8) 0.6: 1. (0,26) 0: 0-, I. (0.12) 0, (2.7) 2.4 (0.18) 0,05 (2)1. 16 (IO) (7.8) 22 (I80) '51 (6)4.8 (0,097) I :25116 (0.33) O. (11): 0.05 LOS 30)3.. (0. ).08, :,1) L (0. 5) 0.0 (0.083) (581 (1700) 600 (8600) r. (0. 7) 0.: 0.' a (S3) 1. (14) 18300) 71 NA (7900) 501 (0.26) 0.: 0.1 7, (0.12) : (0.53) 05 (2.7) 2.4 (0.1: ) 0.05 (18000) III){ 2, (52) : (31) )3.. 52)4 (0,085) 0.0: W.OS3) 0.05 (0.12). Page 13 (50) IS ,70 (8600) 7~ (OA) 0.3; (4.4), (43JlL (II ) 8 (210) (I{ (35) ( (2.7) 2.4 (0.18) 0 (3.9). (J (l00) 80 (300) : (8.5) 6.& (12) 9. (0.84) 0.. (25) 4, 1.4 (21) 17 0, (3' (9.3). (4.2) 3.4 (0.68) 0.16 (0.21) 0.18 (0.11) 1.08: (210)52 16 (14)11 (8300) 71 (7900) (63) 50 [2.71: 0.: 3( _ ~~'"" 7.' (0,53) 0.: (2.7)2. (0.19) 0.8: (23) ) ) 1 (45) (0,05) (0,53 (2) (0. ) O. 24) \ (2200) lqi )00 4; (770):'80 (56) 1.6 (SA) ' 6: (7.2) 2, J'lI 0, B2000 (9600) (67) S 640 -±l()i 4. 2' 2,8 (31 )0) 320 J1 1.6 (140) (45)

246 218 Tab!e 5 Contaminant Soil Standards (other than sediment) ~g/! Property Use Property Use All Types of Property Surface Soil, Soil Use I Dietl" i Endrin repoxide!.4- ~4-1,4 & 2,6-1,4 1 (TEQ) Gamma- «exane In1 Indenoil2 LCad Mercury I rmcthyl Ethyl Ketone I Mclhyllsobutyl KelOne I Meth Mercurv"'---- I Mell I Ether (MTBE) 'hen,,1 ltv rene I Sty1O' it luene, 1,1, I. I.2A- 1,1,1:.1,1,2-,2,4,5-,2,4,6-2-(1-) *** F3 n, (420) 0.92, L O4 ).04 ( 5) (69) O. 34)2.8 (OAS) 0.38 n.8' (4< ('3). (0.0094) 0,0084 IA ) (0.75) 0.6 (130) 100 e (I (7.8) 6.2 9,4 0: 25) (:(.2) 0.7 o.e 12.3) Q. (L4' (3.4 (:. (' 2)3, \ 0.02 o. J). (440) 390 (66) 59 10( (0.51) 0.46 (0.079) (II ( (0. (0. (34) ( IC ( :.8)~ (Iii 16.6 (1.1) 0,75 (0.96) O. (85) (4.6) (19) 16 0,05 (2.3) '16.2 ) (5,8) 4 (30) 27 (4.2)3.8 1IlO 160 ~2)O.021 O ( (66) m 29{)O,~* (I~50(:",,~f04ST~40_.!.: (ol.o~.22~::l;0(~~~(,ii:38lo3 ~) ~0.071 (19) \ '.0: (69) (61)62 I: I I 6~ (0.095)~ (0.06: ~ '88) 46 (0.95) 0.7( 120 (20) 1.9 (2 (0,0094),108 (3. III " I.i \9. (340 r:. e2501 (bbvi % -5, (50' 43: (0.1 ) o. (e. 41 ' I) -3. (n) 6S fl6\-3.2 (12) 6.1 (O.ll) 0.05 (0.61) 0.91 (5.S) 4 (0.25) (42) (0.063) I IS8' 10 (30) OA ) o I (200) 94 (520) 51 (380) 150 ISOOOOO) (210)64 (580000) i3all4 il400) 190 (9.S\. (5500) 610,; 76:;'l1_~=-79;~:~~0~OO (aui (6400) (33) i. 62 = ~ III 15' ISO 500 (: *----'f,5~00 ~~-~ ) i78168 dillo Iill9.s (0,69) fa (s.sj, (0) (4.2) ) O. 6: L ( ,3.,}, 51( ISOO( (S50) 18e (6700) 64C (30) 4. (17) U 250( I (1.7 Page 14

247 219 Table 5 Contaminant SoH Standards (other than sediment) "gig Property Use Property Use. Surface Soil Surface Soil Subsurface Soil -;;;;L All Types of Property Use Xylene Mix'ure (25)3.1 (2S) 3.1 (30) 26 (30) ~inc )40 (24000) l (24000) ISOC (mslem: Q. NA 1.4 I' :hloride NA N N Sodium I Ratio N NA I Sodium NA N NV Notes ( ) Standard in bracket applies to medium and fine textured solis NN= No value delived. NfA = Not applicable + The boron standards are for hot water soluble extract for all surface soils. For subsurface soils the standards are for total boron (mixed strong acid digest), since plant protection for soils below the root zone is not a significant concern. h Analysis for methyl mercury only applies when mercury (total) standard is exceeded u* The methyl naphthalene standards are appliable to both I-methyl naphthauene and 2~ methyl naphthalene, with the provision that ifboth are detected the sum of the two must not exceed the standard. **** Fl fraction does not include BTEX; however, the proponent has the choice as to whether or not to subtract BTEX from the analytical result 420( IIOC fini} ( NA 23000ClO Page 15

248 220 TABLE 6: Generic Site Condition Standards for Shallow Soils in a Potable Ground Water Condition Table 6 Soil Standards (other than sediment).glg Potable Ground Water.giL Residential! Industrial! All Types of Contaminant Agricultural Qf Other ParklandiInstitutional Commercial/Community Property Property Use Property Use Property Use Use Acenaphthene (29) 7.9 (29) 7.9 ( Acenaphthylene (0.17) 0.15 (0.17)0.15 (0.17)0.15 I Acetone (28) 16 (28) 16 (28) Aldrin (0.11) Anthracene (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) 0.67 (0.74) 0.67 I Antimony (50)40 6 Arsenic!l IS Barium Benzene (0.17) 0.21 (0.17) 0.21 (0.4) Bcnzfalanthracene ( (0.63) I Benzofalpyrene oms Benzofb ]fluoranthene Benzo[ghi)peryJene (7.8) 6.6 (7.8) Benzo(k)fluoranthene Beryllium (5) 4 (5) 4 (10) 8 4 Biphenyl 1,1'- (1.I) 0.31 (I.!) 0.31 (210) Bis(2-chloroethy\)ether Bis(2-ch!oroisopropyl}ether (1.8) 0.67 (1.8) 0.67 (13) JJ 120 Bis(2-ethylhcxyl)phthalate 5 5 (35) BOfon (Hot Water Soluble)* NA Boron (total) Bromodichloromethane (1.9)1.5 (1.9) 1.5 (1.9) Bromoform (0.26) 0.27 (0.26) 0.27 (1.7) Bromomethanc Cadmium I Carbon Tetrachloride (0,]2) 0.05 (0.12) 0.05 (0.7!) Chlordane Chlowanilinc p~ (0.53) 0.5 (0.53) 0.5 (0.53) Chlowbenzene (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) 2.4 (2.7) Chloroform (0.18) 0.05 (0.18) 0.05 (0. IS) Chlorophenol. 2- (2) 1.6 (2) 1.6 (3.9) Chromium Tota! Chromium VI (10) 8 (10) 8 (10) 8 25 Chrysene (7.8) 7 (7.S) Cobalt (l00) SO 3.8 Copper (ISO) 140 (180) 140 (300) Cyanide (CN-) Dibcnzla hlanthracene OJ 0.1 OJ 0.2 Djbromochloromethane (2.9) 2.3 (2.9) 2.3 (2.9) Dichlorobenzene, 1.2- (1.7)1.2 (1.7) L2 (1.7) Dichlorobenzene, 1,3- (614.8 (6)4.8 (12) Dichlorobenzene, i,4- (0.097) (0.097) (0.57) Dichlorobenzidine. 3,3'- 1 I I 0.5 Dichiorodifllloromethane (25) 16 (25) 16 (25) DDD DDE (0.33) 0.26 (0.33) 0.26 (0.65) DDT Dichlorocthane" 1,1- (0.6) 0.47 (0.6) 0.47 (0.6) Dichloroethnne, Dichloroethy!ene, 1, (0.43) Dichloroethylene. 1,2.. ds- (2.5) 1.9 (2.5) 1.9 (2.5) Dichlofocthylene, l,2-tra05- (0.75) (0.75) (2.5) DichlorophenoJ, 2,4- (0.27) 0.19 (0.27) 0.19 (0.27) Dichloropropane, 1,2- (0.085) 0.05 (0.035) 0.05 (0.68) Dichlompropene, 1,3- (O.OSI) 0.05 (0.081) 0.05 (0.081) Dicidrin (0.11) 0.OS Page 16

249 221 Table 6 Soil Standards (other than sediment) Mglg Potable Ground Water pgil Residentiat! Industrial! All Types of Contaminant Agricultural or Other Parkland/Institutional CommerciaJJCommunity Property Properly Use Property Use Property Use Use Diethyl Phthalate Dimethy!phthaJate DimethyJphenol, 2,4- (53) 38 (53) 38 (53) Dinitrophenol,2,4- (2.9) 2 (2.9)2 (2.9) 2 10 Dinitrotoluenc, 2,4 & 2, Dioxane. 1, DioxinlFuran (TEO} Endosulfan (0.38) Endrin Ethylbenzene (1.6) 1.1 (!.6j 1.1 (1.6) l.l 2.4 Ethylene dibromide Fluoranthcne OAI Fluorene (69) 62 (69) 62 (69) 62 12{) Heptachlor 0.15 (US Heptachlor Epoxide Hexachlorobenz(''ne I Hexach!orobutadiene (0.014) (0.014) (0.095) Hexachlorocyclohexane Gamma- (0.063) (0.063) (0.063) Hexachloroethane (0.071) (0.071) (0.43) Hexane (n) (34)2.8 (34)28 (88) 46 5 Indenofl 23-cd]pyrcne (OA8) 0.38 (0.48) 0.38 (0.95) Lead Mercury (1.8) 0.25 (1.8) 0.27 (20) Methoxychlor Methyl Ethyl Ketone (44) 16 (44) 16 (88)70 1&00 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (4.3) 1.7 (4.3) 1.7 (210) Methyl Mercury ** ( (0.0094) (0.0094) Methyl tert~butyi Ether (MTBE) (1.4) 0.75 (1.4) 0.75 (23) 1.6 IS Methylene Chloride (0.96) 0.1 (0.96) 0.1 (2) MethJynaphthalene, 2~(H U't' (3.4) 0.99 (3.4) 0.99 (42) Molybdenum Nanhthalene (0.75) 0.6 (0.75) 0.6 (28) Nickel (130) JOO (130) 100 (340) Pentachlorophenol OJ 0.1 (33) Petroleum Hydrocarbons PI Hn (65) 55 (65) 55 (65) Petroleum Hydrocarbons F2 (150)98 (150) 98 (250) Petroleum Hydrocarbons F3 (1300)300 (1300) 300 (2500) Petroleum Hydrocarbons F4 (5600) 2800 (5600)2800 (6600) Phenanthrene (7.8) 6.2 (7.8) 6.2 (16) 12 I Phenol Polychlorinated Biphenyls I.l 0.2 Pyrene % 4.1 Selenium 2.4 2A Silver (25)20 (25) 20 (50) Styrene (2.2) 0.7 (2.2) 0.7 (43) Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,I,2~ (0.05) (0.05) (O.!l) I.l Tetrachloroelhane, 1 J ;l;l (0.094) Tetrachloroethylene (2.3) 028 (23) 0.28 (2:5) Thallium I I Toluene (6) 23 (6) 2.3 (9) Trichlorobcnzene. 1,2,4- (1.4) 0.36 (1.4) 036 (16)32 3 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1- (3.4) 0.38 (3.4) 0.38 (12) Trichloroethane, 1,1, (0.11) Trichloroethylene (0.52) (0.52) (0.61) Trichlorofluoromethane (5.8) 4 (5.8) 4 (5.8) Trichlorophenol,2,4,5- (5.5) 4.4 (5.5) 4.4 (10) Trichlorophenoi,2,4,6- (2.9)2.1 (2.9) 2.1 (2.9) Uranium Vanadium Vinyl Chloride (0.022) 0.02 (0.022) 0.02 (0.25) Page 17