Untouchable

Why wasn’t 2008 fine against Sinclair collected?

Why wasn’t he stopped?

That was the question many folks had in the days following that fateful Sunday morning when environmental criminal Jim Sinclair busted a hole into the side of the former Methodist Episcopal church on Main Street in Picton this past summer.

He violated order after order. He just narrowly avoided causing serious injury or death to an employee who was in the bell tower when Sinclair pulled down the roof. Why was he allowed to continue? Perhaps a more pertinent question is: Why was he allowed to operate a demolition business at all, after the environmental crimes he committed in Belleville? Sinclair gained notoriety in the Quinte region several years ago after he purchased the former Bakelite property on the shores of the Bay of Quinte on the east side of Belleville. Showing utter disregard for the environment and the surrounding neighbours, he drained toxins including PCBs, from the property into the Bay of Quinte.

Soon several provincial and federal agencies were on his tail. He was charged and convicted. In December 2008, he was sentenced to four months in jail and levied fines totalling $659,000. It was a massive fine. It should have put him out of business.

Sinclair spent several weeks behind bars, but the Times has learned that Sinclair has, so far, not paid a nickel of the fine levied against him. Nearly two years have passed since his conviction but, to this day, the County of Hastings has not collected the fine.

Why not?

First it is important to note that while it was the Ministry of Environment that laid charges and pursued the conviction against Sinclair, under the provincial offences act it is the local municipality—in this case Hastings County—that was tasked with collecting the fine.

Initially the municipality refused to answer questions relating to Sinclair’s fine. Only after a Freedom of Information request was filed did Chief Administrative Officer Jim Pine confirm that the fine had never been collected. In a written response, Pine wrote that municipal officials are actively pursuing the collection.

“Some of the actions that we take in collecting a fine secure our position but do not result in immediate payment,” wrote Pine, rather cryptically.

He also spelled out his municipality’s standard collection procedures without elaborating on any progress gained over the past two years.

Left unanswered are questions about why Sinclair’s heavy equipment wasn’t seized, or his vehicles? Could the travesty that unfolded on Main St. in Picton have been avoided if the tools of his crimes had been taken away? Where was the Minstry of Environment? Why aren’t they pushing the municipality to enforce the penalties the provincial agency won two years ago?

Back in December 2008 the Ministry of Environment touted its conviction of Sinclair in a press release. “Following investigations by the Ministry of the Environment’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch, on February 14, 2008 the defendants were convicted of various violations under the Ontario Water Resources Act. These violations related to excavations and discharges from the site, including the discharge of PCB contaminated sediments and failure to comply with Orders issued under the Act to remediate the site and clean-up the discharged sediment.” That was the end of the line for the Ministry of Environment.

“Once the case has been dealt with in court it is out of the Ministry’s hands,” explained ministry spokesperson Michel Finn. “It is up to the County to secure payment of fines.”

Doesn’t the Ministry have an interest is seeing that violators pay their penalties? Does it matter that two years later Sinclair hasn’t paid a penny toward the conviction and fine the ministry won against him?

Mr. Finn wouldn’t be drawn into answering the questions, insisting that the matter was now out of his ministry’s hands. Of course it isn’t.

Sinclair is likely facing additional Ministry of Environment charges relating to the demolition of the church in Picton. MPP Leona Dombrowsky says it is important this fine is collected. “We go through a process in which the court hears all the evidence and make a decision and hand down a sentence,” said Dombrowsky. “So, yes, it is important that the fine is collected.”

Dombrowsky wouldn’t criticize the municipality however.

“I’m sure they would like to collect the fine as well,” said Dombrowsky. “I don’t know what efforts have been made to collect this fine or what might be in process right now.”

She did, h o w e v e r, u n d e r l i n e the importance of following through on collection. “Anytime that laws are flouted it is something that must be dealt with,” said Dombrowsky.

Mayor-elect Peter Mertens vows this municipality will pursue any fines forthcoming from provincial charges that may arise from the demolition of the church on Main St.

“We have a duty, I think, to do what we can to prevent people like this to continue to carry on business, with utter disregard for laws,” said Mertens. “It is our job to ensure that they pay their fines.”

Collecting from Jim Sinclair likely won’t be easy. The conviction was made against Sinclair personally and against his company Thermosets Limited, and Demolition and Recycling Inc. He is currently operating under several other business names including BGR Demolition, Be Green Recycling Inc. and a variety of websites such as 2sellscrap.com, iamgoing2bgreen.com, bgrdemolition.com, themetalmerchants.com, carbatteryroundup.com, and crazy4scrap.com. Some may conclude that that pursuing a claim against an operator who opens and closes this many companies, likely moving his assets around just as fluidly, may be too expensive and time consuming.

We’ve learned this past summer in Picton, however, the steep cost to the community of failing to stop Jim Sinclair.