Monday, 5 January 2015

The Barnfield Story

Surely we all agree that conservation of our precious historic attributes must be protected and preserved for our children and grandchildren for as long as possible. Based on this very premise the genesis of establishing an official body to do just that, conserve our precious historic attributes.

However, keep in mind what Jefferson warned us: ‘Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operation, perverted it into tyranny'.

 News Alert Niagara brings you the following story for you to decide for yourself if the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority has become perverted by dishonoring their Oath to the Crown!

It all started in 2005 when Sharon Vanderloos and Mark Barnfield purchased their 10 acre property in Welland, which was designated Industrial and is located between Atlas Steel, Welland Forge, and 406 hwy. 

In 2008 Mark lost his job at Hayes Dana due to a plant closure. Fortunately he had already proceeded to open a paintball facility on his property to earn a living. 

He went back to school to learn how to open and operate a business. He received financing from Venture Niagara Capital, a Provincial Business License, Vendor permit and the required Business Insurance.  He also received approval from the City of Welland after completing the required costly Environmental Study and paying the necessary permit fees.  The total cost of the required fees came to approximately $6,000.00, not counting legal fees and the cost of Niagara College

After construction of non-permanent structures of railway tie 'forts', for his 'Paintball business' was completed, he was informed by the NPCA that his property contained Provincially Significant Wetlands and that they would not allow the new business.

Just when Sharon Vanderloos and Mark Barnfield finally got their little paintball business to the point of actually making a few sales, they are forced to cease operations. Because of the NPCA action they had to obtain a second mortgage on their property to pay back the grant money to Venture Niagara Capital. The NPCA activity of continually appealing the Barnfield winning court case they left the landowner family flat broke and destitute. 
Sadly we have violent criminals who, even on our Niagara Regional Police Service, who are not treated so harshly!

Click Here for Real Wetland Heroes 

Isn't that just great? A wetland! A PSW!
A Provincially Significant Wetland! 

Seems the NPCA is worried that the Barnfield 'Railway tie forts' might interfere with the hydrological function of a provincially significant wetland. And here we thought that witchcraft style persecution died out centuries ago. 
These NPCA characters would declare the Sahara Desert a wetland if they found a puddle on it. Everyone knows the NPCA needs money but this is a new low!

The way in which the NPCA is abusing their power against property owners by confiscating their private property rights (Without Compension) it is self evident that the NPCA view of PSW is more akin to FSW (Financially Significant Wetlands

The so-called defenders of our environment  have even produced regulations (Ont. Reg. 155/06) giving themselves illegal sway over private property up to 120 meters of all wetlands!

WORSE! They are now demanding control over private property be increased to 250 meters on both sides of any water or stream! 

Granting 1640,42 feet of control over private property would seize up Ontario even more than it already is!

Mark went back to the City and they informed him that this was also the first they had heard of the wetland designation. The City of Welland informed him they had more industrial land for sale in the same area. 

In 2010 NPCA employees trespassed on Marks property, took several photos, staked out what they define as setback from their claimed wetland and charged the couple with development in a Provincially Significant Wetland.  

In 2012 the NPCA took Mark and Sharon to court for a six day trial

They couldn't afford a lawyer so Mark represented himself.  He proved that their property was not a PSW and the development was allowed.  Justices Mills then dismissed all NPCA charges against them.  

The NPCA then appealed the decision and dragged it out for another two years.  Mark and Sharon were dragged back to court for a new trial February 9, 2015. 

Oops! The Feb.9/15 trial could not proceed because Barnfield had the JP removed from the case by charging the JP with conflict of interest. See Mark's letter to the Court Coordinator below

Still, there is the issue regarding the previous trial were Justice Kelly presided over the case against Barnfield without identifying any possible conflict of interest. See below

It must be nice when the prosecutor has a possible conflicted adjudicator on the bench! An adjudicator who won't even hear from a subpoenaed witness!

And what did we witness at the abbreviated Feb.9,2015 trial? We witnessed a much agitated JP vocalizing how one newspaper article did not prove bias and that 'Barnfield's action would not be helpful to his case'.  

Question: Does the bench's veiled threat mean that the persecutor, region's lawyer Mickey Cruickshank, has access to other biased adjudicators and that the region's lawyer might have previously known of the bench's proclivities? 

Whatever the answer, it is obvious that we must keep an eye on our officially appointed justices

However, we must not blame the Region's lawyer or even the justices because they are only doing Niagara Regional Council's bidding! A council who appears to have turned its back on its constituents and forgets that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. 

Winston Churchill said, if you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law. 
Churchill was correct! Ontario passes hundreds of thousands of laws and no citizen respects the Ontario Government!

Throwing Stones from a Glass House

The first obvious view from the 6K sq. meters parking lot was the missing trees! 

They were replaced with the grandest 2K sq. meter edifice 
sitting on 15K square meters of ground carved out of our Balls Falls conservation area! 

In fact it turns out to be an award winning corporate/commercial and competitive Banquette hall lavishly located smack in and on our much vaunted UNESCO World Biosphere Park  paid for by the builder of Mt. Carcinogen in Welland, Niagara!

The empire building Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, in their wisdom and greed, did everything in their power to destroy this couple and with the help of the Region's Lawyer Cruikshank and the Courts they made their case on the basis of connected underground aquifers, 'standing water', a non-existent Black Gum Tree and a dead turtle skeleton in the roadside ditch.

The NPCA's  financial attack on Barnfield flies in the face of every health authority in North America. Even the Niagara Region makes the same WARNING at the very top of their list which states: 
 Reduce 'standing water' where mosquitoes like to breed

 It's chilling enough that the NPCA Board allows this detestable conduct to continue but even more chilling when sanctioned by our elected officials.

Here is the face of what the Regions NPCA Lawyer Micky Cruikshank designates as Criminals.

Check the Conservation Authorities Act below to learn just who the actual criminals are!
...if you click HERE you will learn the names of those behind these wicked criminal activities.

Is there a reason that it is left to a truck driver to ferret out such a likely conflict of interest or at least the devastating appearance of conflict?

                                                                                                    Mark Barnfield
                                                                                                    Sharon Vanderloos
                                                                                                    17 Oxford Rd.
                                                                                                    Welland Ontario

January 27, 2015

Trial Coordinator
Ontario Court of Justice
71 King Street
St. Catharines ON L2R 3H7

Dear Trial Coordinator:

Re:   Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority vs
         Mark Barnfield and Sharon Vanderloos
         Development in a Provincially Significant Wetland
         Ont. Reg. 155/06.
         Court File Numbers: 11-3874 & 11-3869.

This matter is proceeding to trial in front of Justice of the peace Kelly on February 9, 2015 at 9:00 am in Welland. We are self-represented.

We the defendants are asking that Justice Kelly Recuse himself from this matter due to a strong perception of bias.

I have attached a copy of a newspaper article I found in the Welland Tribune dated Oct. 9, 2009, that uncovers a huge conflict of interest. The headline reads; “New justice of the peace ready to serve”. The article states that Justice Kelly is “An advocate for environmental preservation and has served as director for a number of environmental non profits”. The article also states the following: “He also served as board director for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority”. This shows blatant bias and Justice Kelly must remove himself from hearing this matter.

We were also self-represented at the original six day trial in February 2012. Justice of the Peace Mills dismissed all charges against us after we proved that our Industrial property is not a Provincially Significant Wetland and that the development was approved by the City of Welland. The NPCA appealed Justice Mills’s decision and Justice Corozza ordered a new trial.

In the original trial, I successfully filed a section 8 Charter Violation that NPCA employees Tim MacGillivary and Dan Drennan illegally trespassed on our property twice and all photographic evidence was suppressed by Justice Mills

The Section 8 Charter Violation Motion was recently heard again. This time in front of Justice Kelly and it was dealt with unfairly. I asked Prosecutor Mickey Cruickshank to make available the bylaw officers involved; but he refused and Justice Kelly told me to subpoena them. I then hired a process server and they served Dan Drennan at the NPCA office, (Tim MacGillivary no longer works there). Mr. Drennan was at the Motion Hearing, but when I asked for him to take the stand Justice Kelly refused to allow it. For this reason we request that the Section 8 Charter Violation Motion Hearing for the new trial be rescheduled as we feel Justice Kelly has denied us a full and complete defense.  

Although we are not lawyers, as common people, living in Canada, we have a right to expect fair and impartial treatment by our judicial system. It is stated: Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Gordon Hewart, Ist Viscount Hewart   Case of Rex v. Sussex Justices, 9 Nov.
R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233

It is my understanding, after reviewing documents on the webpage "" and reviewing the document Principles of Judicial Office, that Justice Kelly has already breached several of these principles in his actions and decisions, as stated above, in my case.
For example:

-          Judges must be impartial and objective in the discharge of their judicial duties.
-          Judges should maintain their objectivity and shall not, by words or conduct, manifest favor, bias or prejudice towards any party or interest.
-          Judges have a duty to follow the law.
-          Judges have a duty to apply the relevant law to the facts and circumstances of the cases before the court and render justice within the framework of the law.
-          Judges should approach their judicial duties in a spirit of collegiality, cooperation and mutual assistance.
-          Judges should conduct court business with due diligence and dispose of all matters before them promptly and efficiently having regard, at all times, to the interests of justice and the rights of the parties before the court.
-          Judges must avoid any conflict of interest, or the appearance of any conflict of interest, in the performance of their judicial duties.

Justice Kelly was a director of the Corporation bringing the charges against us - the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. This fact alone demonstrates a strong perception of bias. The attached article brings out even more prejudicial activities in respect to this Justice of the Peace and the matters in our case.

I have also attached a copy of a letter from Prosecutor Mickey Cruickshank to Justice of the Peace Kelly in regards to this trial dated January 15, 2015.

If you have any questions or concerns in regards to the above please feel free to contact me at 905-714-9998 or


Who is his worship Brett Allen Kelly? 

The story below was found on this site:

His Worship Brett Allen Kelly has worked as a senior consultant with the Ministry of Health's Primary Health Care Team since 2006 and as director of research for the Schumacher Leadership Institute on a part-time basis since 2005. Prior to that, Justice of the Peace Kelly worked in politics as a policy advisor for the Ministers of Environment and Municipal Affairs, the communications advisor to the Minister of Natural Resources, and also as chief of staff for the Associate Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As an advocate for environmental preservation, His Worship has served as director for a number of environmental non-profits such as, Dunnville C.A.R.E.S., Lower Grand River Land Trust and the Haldimand Federation of Agriculture. He also served as board director for the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. His Worship has been appointed as a full-time presiding justice of the peace. Associate Chief Justice-Coordinator of Justices of the Peace John A. Payne has assigned Justice of the Peace Kelly to St. Catharines.

More sites:

Prior to that, Kelly worked in politics as a policy advisor for the ministers of environment and municipal affairs, communications advisor to the minister of natural resources, and also as chief of staff for the associate minister of municipal affairs and housing.

As an advocate for environmental preservation, Kelly has served as director for a number of environmental non-profits such as Dunnville C. A. R. E. S., Lower Grand River Land Trust and Haldimand Federation of Agriculture.

Is the following 'ACT' difficult to comprehend?

Conservation Authorities Act
R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.27
Last amendment:  2011, c. 9, Sched. 27, s. 22.
21.  (1)  For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has power,
         (a)               to study and investigate the watershed and to determine a program whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed;
         (b)               for any purpose necessary to any project under consideration or undertaken by the authority, to enter into and upon any land and survey and take levels of it and make such borings or sink such trial pits as the authority considers necessary;
         (c)               to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to expropriate any land that it may require, and, subject to subsection (2), to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land so acquired;
         (d)               despite subsection (2), to lease for a term of five years or less land acquired by the authority;
         (e)               to purchase or acquire any personal property that it may require and sell or otherwise deal therewith;
         (f)                to enter into agreements for the purchase of materials, employment of labour and other purposes as may be necessary for the due carrying out of any project;
         (g)               to enter into agreements with owners of private lands to facilitate the due carrying out of any project;
         (h)               to determine the proportion of the total benefit afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them;
         (i)                to erect works and structures and create reservoirs by the construction of dams or otherwise;
         (j)                to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof;
         (k)               to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water-pipe, gas-pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole;
         (l)                to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for purposes, not inconsistent with its objects, as it considers proper;
         (m)              to use lands owned or controlled by the authority for park or other recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admission thereto and the use thereof;
         (m.1)           to charge fees for services approved by the Minister;
         (n)               to collaborate and enter into agreements with ministries and agencies of government, municipal councils and local boards and other organizations;
         (o)               to plant and produce trees on Crown lands with the consent of the Minister, and on other lands with the consent of the owner, for any purpose;
         (p)               to cause research to be done;
         (q)               generally to do all such acts as are necessary for the due carrying out of any project.  R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 21; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (1, 2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 11.
Approval of Minister
            (2)  If the Minister has made a grant to an authority under section 39 in respect of land, the authority shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land under clause (1) (c) without the approval of the Minister except if,
         (a)               the disposition is for provincial or municipal infrastructure and utility purposes;
         (b)               the province, the provincial agency, board or commission affected by the disposition or the municipal government, agency, board or commission affected by the disposition has approved it; and
         (c)               the authority informs the Minister of the disposition.  2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (1).
Terms and conditions
            (3)  The Minister may impose terms and conditions on an approval given under subsection (2), including a condition that the authority pay a specified share of the proceeds of the disposition to the Minister.  1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (3).

Excerpt from National Post

Take the case of Mark Barnfield from Welland, Ont. In 2005, Barnfield purchased a chunk of land near Niagara Falls. In 2009, after losing his job, he decided to open a paintball range on the property. Barnfield conducted an environmental assessment, obtained all the necessary permits from the province and the municipality, and proceeded to clear rusting cars and other junk from the property and build a dirt path to provide access for future customers.

Ontario could certainly use more entrepreneurs like Barnfield, but instead of giving him a pat on the back and allowing him to earn an honest living, the government sent inspectors from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) to trespass on his property. After one of them found a dead turtle, the land was reclassified from an industrial zone to a Provincially Significant Wetland.

The NPCA has dragged Barnfield through successive court battles for over three years now, continually appealing lower court decisions, despite the fact that, save one dead turtle, none of the protected species claimed to live on the property have ever been found. Nor would having a paintball range be all that damaging to the ecosystem, and Barnfield has already removed large scraps of metal from the property, reverting it to a more natural state than when he found it. The NPCA has also willfully trampled on Barnfield’s private property rights and thrown the rule of law right out the window by changing the rules on whether a business can be setup on the land in the middle of the game.

All this will be decided by a Superior Court judge who heard the case in February. In the meantime, Barnfield has been prevented from opening his small business, faces a possible $30,000 fine and will likely have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to cover legal costs and the removal of the dirt path.

While stories such as these rarely make front-page news, they are all too common across this country. Years of enacting silly municipal bylaws and nit-picky federal and provincial regulations have created a whole host of rules that government inspectors can use to harass property owners who are just trying to enjoy their property or earn a living.

At the very least, environmental inspectors and bylaw officers should be held to the same standard as law enforcement officers: They should be required to obtain a warrant before trespassing on private property, even if they are confining themselves to the yard. Yet, in Ontario, the Municipal Act gives city employees the right to walk into anyone’s backyard “at any reasonable time.”

Changing provincial laws, such as this, would be a good first step. But Canadians won’t truly be secure from government agents trampling on their land, until property rights are enshrined in the Charter. 

1 comment:

  1. Brilliant reporting!! It was horrific to see the way the proceedings went in the court, today. Mark Barnfield and Sharon Vanderloos had to defend themselves against not only the government, but also, the "Judicial" system, that is obviously in league with said miscreants! I hope that with the passing of time, this case is resolved in their favour, as it is the only sensible, logical, and moral outcome! Great to see people supporting this couple, as they are fighting on behalf of Landowners all over Ontario!