breen residency letter

7/28/2019 Breen Residency Letter

1/5

Breen GeoScience Management, Inc.PMB 354, 4234 1-75 Business SpurSault Ste. Marie, MI. 49783(906) 248-5682January 22, 2013

Linda Whalen, General ManagerSault Ste. Marie Region Conservation Authority1100 Fifth Line EastSault Ste. Marie, ON P6A 6J8

Ms. Whalen,I have prepared this letter to clarify issues regarding my legitimacy to workin Canada. These issues have been raised in public comments regardingthe Pointe Estates permit application, and, a false report has been madeto Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) about me illegally working inCanada. I believe that the false report to CBSA was made for the purpose ofpreventing me from attending the December 13, 2012 SSMRCA Board Meet-ing in order to make comments with regards to the Pointe Estates Permitapplication. I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate my con-cerns regarding the potential human health risk associated with the PointeEstates Development.At 3:30 PM on December 12, 2012, I was contacted by phone by an individualstating to be from CBSA. This individual did not identify themselves by nameor position only stated that this call was a warning to me to stop workingin Canada or I would no longer be allowed entry. As my wife, children, andextended family are Canadian citizens, I needed to take the threat seriously.Therefore, I could not attend the SSMRCA meeting, the day following thecall, on December 13, 2012 and could not cross the border until this issue wasresolved. As the alleged illegal work was conducted 18 months prior to thecall, the fact that this call was made the day prior to the SSMRCA BoardMeeting only confirms the caller's dubious intent.To address this issue, I retained the legal services of Gowlings, Lafleur, Hen-erson, LLP, who investigated my case and confirmed that I am a legal per-manent resident of Canada (see attached letter dated December 2012) andhave the right to work in Canada. This conclusion was confirmed by Su-perintendent David Deer at the Queenston/Lewiston Bridge as well as DanFisher at the Sault Ste. Marie Port of Entry.I also contacted James Cameron at the Sault Ste. Marie Port of Entryregarding an investigation of the call to CBSA. To date, Officer Cameron


2/5

has not been able to find any documentation or evidence that a complaintwas made to CBSA. At the completion of his inquiry, he will provide me aletter stating his findings which I will provide to you forthwith.All evidence that I have obtained to date suggests that the call was illegiti-mate and made solely for the purpose of preventing me from attending theDecember 13, 2012 SSMRCA Board Meeting and commenting on the PointeEstates permit application.Potential Human Health Risk Related to Pointe EstatesI am concerned regarding the potential human and environmental healthrisks associated with the Pointe Estates Development. This letter representsthe fifth (5th) time that I have attempted to inform the SSMRCA Board ofDirectors of these concerns and to recommend that a proper hydrogeologicassessment be conducted as part of the permitting process. The previousattempts included:

October 12, 2010 Technical Hydrologic Evaluation, Pointe Estates De-velopment.

September 14, 2011 SSMRCA Meeting held at Sault Ste. Marie CityHall

October 11, 2011 Technical Meeting held at Prince Township Hall December 26, 2011 Technical Opinion, Pointe Estates Development

Primary among my concerns is the potential for septic tank effluent to mi-grate to the canal as well as to the lower bedrock drinking water aquifer.Coldwater Consulting Ltd (Coldwater), one of the Pointe Estates consul-tants, has stated that septic tank effluent will migrate to the canal in theupper water bearing unit and cannot migrate to the bedrock due to the thicksequence of clay separating the upper unit from the bedrock unit. WatersEnvironmental Geoscience Ltd. (Waters) stated that the thickness of the claywas highly variable, but only constructed a geologic cross section through thethickest portion of the clay leaving the impression that a substantial thick-ness of clay exists across the proposed development. In addition, Watersused a boring identified in the MOE database as having 30 meters of clay intheir cross section. Use of this boring was highly misleading since the MOEdatabase did not provide location coordinates for the well, and, therefore thevalidity of this well cannot be confirmed. Also, Waters did not present across section along the direction of the highest variability of the clay in orderto accurately evaluate the nature and extent of this unit. This is misleadingand inconsistent with common practice.My analysis, presented in the December 2011 report, clearly shows that theclay underlying at least half of the proposed development could be less than

2


3/5

1 meter in thickness to potentially not present. Also, a potential exists forthe canal to encounter bedrock resulting in a direct conduit for potentiallystagnant canal water containing Ecoli to migrate directly into the bedrockdrinking water aquifer. This will greatly increase the potential impact ofseptic tank effluent on residential drinking water wells. In addition, theproposal to 'flush' out the canal and discharge canal water effluent to the St.Marys River could result in impacts to the shoreline downgradient of PointeLouise.The October 2010 evaluation was prepared at the request of the SSMRCA inresponse to the Pointe Estates Development's appeal to the SSMRCA June2010 decision to deny the Pointe Estates permit. This evaluation addressed:

1. Pointe Estates Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis, Technical Report,Coldwater Consulting Ltd (Coldwater) ;

2. Presentation, Coldwater Consulting Ltd, Pointe Estates ; and,3. 2006 Preliminary Hydrogeological Impact Assessment by Waters Envi-

ronmental Geoscience Ltd. (Waters)A summary of the conclusions of this evaluation were:

The Pointe Estates hydrologic model analysis is invalid and does notconstitute evidence that the proposed development is protective of hu-man health or the environment. Information presented in that reportclearly demonstrates that representatives of Coldwater did not followtheir own technical standards in conducting the model work. Actual data was not collected as part of the Pointe Estates model anal-ysis. This information is critical in validating the model simulations,demonstrating the effectiveness and limitations of the model, and iden-tifying potential data gaps, and,

The potential impact of the recirculation system on the water qualityalong the shoreline was not evaluated. Given the potential for elevatedEcoli levels, as well as other septic tank effluent constituents, this dis-charge could represent a significant potential threat to human healthand should be addressed.

The following year, I was retained to assist in the legal defense of the SSM-RCA related to Pointe Estates. During that time, I was asked to providea presentation to the SSMRCA Board of Directors on September 14, 2011.In attendance were Linda Whalen, General Manager SSMRCA, Ken Lam-ming, Chairman, Susan Myers, Frank Manzo, and Brian Watkins. Duringthat meeting I presented evidence and technical analysis which supported theconclusion that there is a potential risk for septic tank effluent to migrate toresidential drinking water wells. In addition, I presented evidence that the

3


4/5

2006 Waters report was deficient and misleading in it's characterization ofthe nature and extent of the clay separating the upper water bearing zonefrom the drinking water bedrock aquifer, misinterpreted MOE Guidance D-5-4 pertaining to individual on-site sewage systems, and presented additionalconcerns regarding potential impacts related to the construction and flushingof the proposed canal.Subsequently on October 5, 2011, Susan Myers tendered her resignation fromthe SSMRCA Board of Directors.On October 11, 2011, at the request of Ken Lamming, I attended a technicalmeeting in Prince Township to further discuss the Pointe Estates Develop-ment Permit. In attendance were Linda Whalen, General Manager SSMRCA,Ken Lamming, Chairman, and Jeff Avery and M.Davies, PEng. representingthe Avery Group for Pointe Estates. In that meeting, I again presented myconcerns regarding the potential human health risks associated with the sub-surface geology, the hydrologic modeling, and the potential risks associatedwith the septic systems and proposed canal.Finally, I presented the SSMRCA Board of Directors with an extensive re-port; with detailed supporting data and documentation, presenting my con-cerns with the deficiencies in the technical work to that point with the PointeEstates Permit application.To my knowledge and in consultation with the SSMRCA technical staff, theseissues have not been addressed. In addition, the latest Waters report shouldbe released for technical review as I have yet to see it.In conclusion, I would like to restate my right to work in Canada as a per-manent resident and to reiterate my concerns regarding the potential risksassociated with the Pointe Estates Development.Please provide copies of this letter to the SSMRCA Board of Directors. Pleasealso feel free to distribute this letter to other interested parties and stake-holders as you deem necessary.

encl: December 2012 Letter, Gowlings, Lafleur, Henderson LLP

4ERIN BARTLETTNotary Public, State of MichiCounty of ChippewaMy Comm ission Boay.,06,Acting in the County o


5/5

esley A. Love

gowl ingsontreal Ottawa toronto hamilton waterloo region Calgary Vancouver moscow londonDecember 2012

DELIVERED

Reviewing OfficerCanada Border Services AgencyPort of EntryDear Sir/Madam:

Lesley A. LoveDirect (519) 569-4562Direct Fax (519) 569-4062

lesley.love@gowlings @gowlings.com

Re: Confirmation of Permanent Resident Status of Francis A. Breen

We write this letter on behalf of Mr. Francis Breen, a United States citizen and CanadianPermanent Resident. Mr. Breen became a permanent resident of Canada in 1991 after hewas sponsored by his Canadian citizen wife, Michelle Henderson Breen. Mr. Breen and hiswife moved to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan in 1992 and have resided together since thattime.A permanent resident may count each day that they accompanied a Canadian citizenoutside Canada towards the residency obligation, provided that the person theyaccompanied is their spouse or common-law partner. Therefore, the residency thresholdhas been met, as Mr. Breen has lived continuously with his Canadian citizen spouse sincebecoming a permanent resident of Canada.Mr. Breen's Canadian permanent resident status has been confirmed by SuperintendentDavid Dear at the Queenston/Lewiston Bridge. Superintendent Dear has also confirmedthat he has updated the "FOSS" system to confirm the permanent resident status of Mr.Breen.As a permanent resident of Canada, Mr. Breen is allowed to enter Canada for any reason,whether it is to work or to visit family.If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.Yours truly,GOWLINGAAFLEUR HENDERSN LLP

Gowl ing Laf l eur Hende rson LIP Lawyers Pa t ent and Trade-mark Ag ent s50 Queen Street North Suite 1020 PO Box 2248 Kitchener Ontario N2H 6M2 Canada T 519-576-6910 F 519-576-6030 gowlings.com

breen residency letter

Documents