‘She will never get elected again’: Caledon resident files complaints with Ontario ombudsman and privacy commissioner over blasting quarry proposal

Until five months ago, Caledon resident Tony Sevelka regularly received replies from Mayor Annette Groves when he emailed about his concerns over the proposed blasting quarry, a few steps away from his home. Today, his messages go unanswered.

Back in February, when he last spoke to The Pointer, he spoke highly of Mayor Groves, praising her willingness to listen.

Now, he says, she’s turned a deaf ear.

“Nothing, and, and I don't know what's going on now, but frankly, she will never get elected again,” he told The Pointer on July 30.

What changed?

On July 8, Sevelka was among the residents who showed up to oppose Groves’ quietly tabled motion to convert Swan Lake, a former aggregate pit turned rehabilitated water body, into a fill site. He says the mayor’s silence on calls for greater accountability, paired with what he sees as a “tremendous violation of trust” in favour of a “very prominent developer” and use of strong mayor powers to push forward more than a dozen zoning changes enabling sprawling subdivision developments, was the final straw.

“I don't think she's ever going to get elected again after that fiasco, and I do think that that should be investigated by the OPP, because it's unprecedented what she's done,” he said.

Sevelka could only show up and voice his opposition to the Swan Lake motion, but he recognized it as a pivotal moment in the mayor’s approach, one that galvanized him to take concrete steps and escalate his fight against the blasting quarry proposal.

The Town of Caledon states it has received “a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment application for a quarry”, involving the development of Class A, below-water table quarry, which would allow for the extraction of more than 20,000 tonnes of bedrock aggregates annually, and would have a maximum extraction limit of 2.5 million tonnes per year, with CBM expecting to ship approximately 2 million tonnes annually once the site reaches full production.

(CBM Aggregates/Town of Caledon)

If approved, the operation could be permitted to run for more than 50 years.

On July 25, he filed formal complaints with the Ontario Ombudsman and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, calling for “transparency” and an investigation into what he alleges are serious procedural failures and potential abuse of power in the Town of Caledon’s handling of Brazilian cement giant conglomerate Votorantim Cimentos’ (St Marys/Canada Building Materials) application for an 800-acre blasting quarry.

In his complaint, Sevelka is requesting the Ontario Ombudsman’s Office investigate the Town of Caledon’s handling of Votorantim Cimentos’ quarry application, citing serious concerns over procedural fairness and abuse of power. He argues that the Town’s failure to acknowledge or track objections, prevent public dialogue, and outsource public engagement to a private consultant undermines transparency and accountability. Sevelka calls for corrective action to ensure a fair process, highlighting the need for transparency, public participation, and environmental justice in such a significant development.

(Tony Sevelka)

The proposal would allow perpetual dewatering below the water table, unrestricted blasting and no limits on extraction depth, impacts Sevelka says are permanent, irreversible, and far-reaching. 

“The nature and scale of the proposed development are unprecedented and warrants a robust, inclusive and transparent process of review,” he wrote in his complaint, emphasizing the need for residents to have full access to information about the risks associated with a blasting quarry.

Caledon resident and Sevelka’s neighbour, David Cunningham, in support of the complaint, also wrote to Information and Privacy Commissioner Patricia Kosseim: “I also feel that the Town of Caledon is deliberately withholding significant information from Caledon residents with respect to the proposed blasting quarry which would be located very close to my property.  I also request that you direct the Town of Caledon to disclose all the objections and other considerations that have arisen since this proposal was first initiated.”

In 2021, the town in its official plan noted that it would “restrict the number of aggregate operations”, considering the “clear” community opposition against ongoing aggregate operations as well as the blasting quarry.

(Future Caledon/Town of Caledon)

In April 2023, Groves pledged that all nine members of the council would stand against the blasting quarry proposal.

On January 25, Mayor Annette Groves attended a rally in Milton organized by activists opposing aggregate operations and quarry expansion. Her presence signalled support for the movement, but her remarks focused less on environmental or land-use concerns and more on the financial burden these operations place on municipalities. Groves emphasized the strain that aggregate trucks and infrastructure demands put on local roads, calling on the province to ensure municipalities are fairly compensated.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer) 

The vow, however, did little to reassure residents who felt blindsided by the lack of transparency around the application, especially after it was revealed that the Town had accepted final documents in December 2022, despite an interim control bylaw in place prohibiting the approval of new aggregate applications until October of the following year.

The bylaw was extended in 2023, but was appealed by CBM to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Although it expired on October 18, 2024, the OLT issued a ruling on March 14 upholding Caledon’s Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL).

“The Appellant argued that the ICBL limits the economic well-being of the province and the GTA, because, as the Appellant’s planner testified, aggregate reserves that are ‘close to market’ are critically low…However, the Tribunal was not persuaded by this. Rather, the Tribunal was persuaded by Forks’ (Forks of the Credit Preservation Group (FCPG)) submissions and evidence, including data provided, that there appears to be an ample supply of aggregate resources, with at least 13.44 million tonnes available annually, contradicting the Appellant’s concerns about economic harm and aggregate shortages,” the OLT’s ruling mentions.

In the first quarter of 2025, Votorantim Cimentos made R$5.6 billion or C$1.37 billion in total revenue globally, a one percent increase compared to the same period in 2024. In North America, the company earned R$1.2 billion (approximately C$294 million), about nine percent less than the same period last year, which they attributed to a market slowdown caused by a “harsher winter” in its latest financial results.

“The Tribunal was also persuaded by (FCPG’s) Counsel’s [David Donnelly] submissions that the ICBL supports the Town’s goal, as outlined in the Town’s OP, to preserve its unique character while managing aggregate resources responsibly.”

The Town worked to overhaul its aggregate policy framework, prompted in part by a 2022 study that ranked the Town last in areas such as air and water quality protections, hydrogeological safeguards, and consultation with First Nations.

In October 2024, the Town of Caledon introduced proposed changes to its Official Plan that would require blast impact assessments for aggregate operations including new elements like a flyrock management plan and a vibration management plan; directly linked to the CBM mega quarry proposal.

Among the proposed reforms, the Town recommended prohibiting mineral aggregate operations in evaluated non-provincially significant wetlands, unevaluated wetlands, and their associated features.

Environmental lawyer and advocate David Donnelly, of the Reform Gravel Mining Coalition, commended Caledon for adopting the World Health Organization’s 2021 standards for PM2.5 and PM10 in its air quality policies, a move he called “long overdue,” noting that most of Ontario still follows the outdated 2005 standards.

He described Caledon’s proposed policy shift as a “near perfect reading of the public desire” to protect the environment and uphold community interests.

The additions marked a step forward from the Town’s previously lax regulatory framework, but critics argued they fell short. 

Key protections including mandatory setbacks between quarries and residential properties remained absent. The wording of the proposed policies has also drawn concern, with terms like “encouraged” and “may” replacing more enforceable language.

“There is no standardized definition of flyrock, which complicates understanding the potential adverse effects associated with blasting rock,” Sevelka notes in one of his studies published in December 2022. 

The U.S. Department of Labor defines flyrock as “the fragments of rock thrown and scattered during blasting –  is responsible for a large proportion of all blasting-related injuries and fatalities. Flyrock is a potential hazard anytime and anywhere there is blasting.”

In Canada, only the government of Nova Scotia presents a definition of flyrock as “rock that is thrown through the air as a result of blasting. Flyrock is an integral part of blasting that needs to be properly controlled.” 

“If flyrock is uncontrolled the rocks, which can travel significant distances, pose a risk to persons involved with blasting as well as anyone else in the area of the blast. There is also the potential for damage to nearby property or equipment.”

The proposed quarry is diagonally situated next to a gas station, a detail that has received little attention but could have disastrous consequences in the event of a flyrock incident or blasting-related disruption, which could endanger public safety and cause severe damage to nearby houses.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

Sevelka also points out that systemic issues make his fight tougher, and longer. 

Despite flyrock being one of the most dangerous aspects of quarry blasting, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute’s Act did not include any formal guidelines until January 2022. The updated regulations now require new quarries to take reasonable measures to prevent flyrock from leaving the site if a “sensitive receptor”, such as a residential area, is located within 500 meters of the boundary.

A CBM spokesperson told The Pointer that if the blasting quarry proposal is approved, the company “plans to conduct blasting in its proposed quarry using state-of-the-art techniques that adhere to Ontario's stringent provincial standards for safety and environmental protection. By employing precise monitoring systems, controlled blast designs, and adhering to strict vibration and noise limits, CBM ensures that the blasting process minimizes the impact on surrounding communities, protects nearby water sources, and safeguards local wildlife with the appropriate setbacks to achieve this protection.”

Sevelka argues that the province’s Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) still fails to provide sufficient oversight or a clear definition of what constitutes “reasonable measures” for managing flyrock. 

What are called "blast impact assessments" under the ARA, he says, are actually just blast design reports that don’t assess the real impacts. These reports focus only on the distance between the excavation limit and a home’s foundation, ignoring the property line, which lets harmful effects on outdoor spaces slip through the cracks, something he believes is never clearly explained to the public.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has also never conducted a quantitative study on flyrock incidents, leaving a critical gap in understanding the full extent of the hazards.

He proposes three key measures including a minimum onsite setback of 500 metres from property boundaries, a minimum offsite separation distance of 1,000 metres from sensitive land uses and settlement area boundaries, and a requirement that contaminants, as defined under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act, remain onsite.

These measures, Sevelka argues, are necessary to prevent irreparable damage to the environment and to protect local communities from the adverse impacts of quarry operations.

The Town claimed the application was “deemed complete” as of March 23, 2023, residents like Sevelka argue that it never should have reached that stage. 

Under the Planning Act, a municipality must process complete applications within 120 days or risk the applicant appealing to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Still, many residents remain concerned that “complete” doesn’t mean “rigorous”, and that Town staff have failed to uphold the spirit of Groves’ initial commitment.

The Town of Caledon has also been updating its website with some peer-reviewed studies, completed by third-party consultancies, tied to the CBM quarry proposal, covering impacts on agriculture, air quality, noise, dust, transportation, hydrogeology, among others. 

The Town has also brought on a third-party consultant, Genevieve Scott from Cuesta Planning Consultants, to oversee the process and determine which studies are needed before any decision is made.

But Sevelka argues that while the developer’s studies are published, public objections are not, a gap that he believes undermines transparency and fairness.

He has requested the Information and Privacy Commissioner ensure the Town publishes all public objections to recent zoning and official plan amendments, including those related to the Votorantim Cimentos quarry, as these objections are part of the public record under the Planning Act and should be available on the Town's website, including the names of objectors, in line with Ontario's access and privacy laws. 

Sevelka seeks confirmation that these names should not be redacted, highlighting the importance of transparency and public oversight, particularly due to the significant environmental and community impacts of the proposed quarry.

“It’s unfair that objectors don’t get anything posted on the website…It’s discourteous that the Town doesn’t even acknowledge if they’ve received an objection. So now, you send in an objection, but you don’t know if it goes in the garbage can. You don’t know how many objectors there are, who they are, and these objectors have no way to communicate with each other or to have a united front,” he told The Pointer.

The burden of research and advocacy has fallen on residents like himself, turning his retirement into a mission that’s made him a published expert on the dangers of blasting quarries.

Beyond the immediate physical hazards of flyrock, blasting operations generate extensive noise, vibration, and dust pollution, which degrade quality of life for residents.

Tony Sevelka installed an air purifier in his home, hoping to ease the sting of worsening pollution and air quality. Every day, he and his wife find themselves adjusting paintings and artwork, disturbed by the vibrations of trucks hauling aggregate past their house. They can’t help but imagine the chaos a blasting quarry nearby could bring.

(Anushka Yadav/The Pointer)

Constant vibrations from heavy truck traffic and blasting can damage homes, artworks, and renewable energy installations like solar panels and geothermal systems. Airborne dust, including carcinogenic crystalline silica, along with toxic gases emitted during blasting, pose health risks such as respiratory illnesses, concerns already felt by residents living near quarry sites. 

These environmental impacts also threaten local ecosystems by fragmenting habitats and disrupting groundwater flow.

In a memorandum dated March 19, North-South Environmental senior ecologist Shannon Catton reviewed data confirming multiple Brook Trout and redd (spawning habitat) locations along the section of the Credit River that runs the length of the proposed pit. The presence and extent of these sensitive habitats necessitate further assessment of potential impacts from the proposed development.

Catton notes key concerns like revising the blasting impact assessment to adopt the current Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) threshold of 50 kilopascal (kPa) (down from the outdated 100 kPa), and incorporating fish habitat receptors both upstream and downstream of Charleston Sideroad within 400 metres of the quarry. 

She recommends including more detailed information and impact assessments for quarry dewatering operations, including discharge timing, volumes, groundwater effects, and temperature changes, to properly evaluate risks to Brook Trout and their spawning habitat.

Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) has provided extensive data, including recent 2024 surveys, covering the stretch from Charleston Sideroad upstream to the boundary of CVC’s property (highlighted in yellow on the map). Notably, redds have been recorded within 400 metres of the proposed extraction limit and adjacent to the golf course where quarry dewatering discharge is planned. This underscores the need for a comprehensive impact assessment to protect this critical fish habitat.

(Town of Caledon)

“They’re treating this like some kind of routine rezoning application, but it’s not. This has huge implications, not just for us here. It affects the 758,000 people who depend on the Credit River watershed and the ecological benefits it provides,” he noted.

In 2009, the Pembina Institute worked with Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) to assess the value of natural capital in the Credit River Watershed, and found that the Credit River watershed provides at least $371 million per year in ecological services to local residents. 

Sevelka adjusted the figure for inflation using the Consumer Price Index to reflect current values of roughly $550 million annually by 2025.

“Just imagine if there was a 10 percent degradation of the Credit River, that’s still $55 million a year. It’s not a localized issue,” he explained.

“I argue this is a public interest issue. Brampton and Mississauga should be involved because they’re all impacted and rely on the Credit River.”

Caledon already hosts over 20 licensed aggregate pits, which have significantly impacted the landscape, disrupting more than 4,000 acres of land, an area nearly five times the size of New York City’s Central Park.

Town of Caledon’s official plan’s 2021 engagement summary is filled with residents opposing the blasting quarry.

(Future Caledon/Town of Caledon)

In a statement shared with The Pointer, the Town noted “a public consultation associated with these Planning Act applications is planned for the fall, and more information will be shared when it becomes available.”

Sevelka told The Pointer he recently spoke with lead planner Genevieve Scott about the CBM quarry proposal. "I told her I’m not attacking her, but the system," he said, noting Scott mentioned she has a meeting with the planner soon to discuss the concerns.

The Pointer reached out to Scott for comment, but did not receive a response.

Sevelka says he has yet to receive a response or even a confirmation from either the Ombudsman or the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Pointer reached out to both and was informed that they do not comment on whether specific complaints have been received, citing confidentiality reasons.

“It plays on your mind. It doesn’t go away. You’re always stressed because you don’t know what’s happening,” Sevelka said. ”I have to keep researching because I have no confidence in the process,” 

Email: [email protected]

At a time when vital public information is needed by everyone, The Pointer has taken down our paywall on all stories to ensure every resident of Brampton, Mississauga and Niagara has access to the facts. For those who are able, we encourage you to consider a subscription. This will help us report on important public interest issues the community needs to know about now more than ever. You can register for a 30-day free trial HERE. Thereafter, The Pointer will charge $10 a month and you can cancel any time right on the website. Thank you