REPORT OF THE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ... planning/da-172861...December 10, 2014 This assessment...

REPORT OF THE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

OF THE PROPERTY AT 2266 LAKESHORE ROAD WEST & 83 EAST STREET

OAKVILLE, ONTARIO

Prepared for

Investican Group Ltd. (acting on instructions from Mr. Mike Petrovsky)

Our Reference Number: 14-1433 December 10, 2014

25 West Beaver Creek Road, Unit 11, Richmond Hil l, Ontario L4B 1K2 Phone: (905) 707-9272 Fax: (905) 707-9273

2266 Lakeshore Road West & 83 East Street, Oakville Ontario Our Reference Number: 14-1433 December 10, 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. (herein after referred to as Candec) has carried out a phase one environmental assessment of the property located 2266 Lakeshore Road West & 83 East Street, Oakville Ontario. The ESA was carried out generally in accordance with CSA Standard Z768-01 (R2006); Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The assessment was carried out to obtain an indication of the likely presence of any condition at the site that might pose a health hazard to humans or pose a significant risk to the environment. At the time of the time of the assessment, there were two single story buildings on the assessment property; one has a single level of basement and is used occupied by professional offices; the other is an on-grade building that is occupied by a convenience store. The surrounding lands are all developed, mostly for residential and commercial purposes. There are no properties in the area that are used for activities that are classified as manufacturing, none of the properties appears likely to have any impact on the subject property. In general, the phase one ESA property appears clean and well maintained. Candec did not observe any surface staining to suggest that a potentially harmful liquid has been spilled. No evidence was observed that suggested an underground storage tank was present on the phase one ESA property, and no above ground storage tanks was observed to be present. There are no radioactive materials on site and no evidence of the presence of it was noted that would require licensing by the Atomic Energy Control Board. There are not explosives at the site. The historical and anecdotal data collected by Candec revealed that the historical and current uses of the surrounding properties do not pose risk of causing potentially adverse impacts to the soil and groundwater conditions at their locations at possible at the subject property. There have been no ‘potentially contaminating activities’ carried out at the subject property. On the basis of the data that has been collated, it has been concluded that the soil and groundwater conditions at the subject property are unlikely to be impacted to the extent that they contravene the prevailing Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC) land use criteria. Accordingly, it has been concluded that not further assessment work is required at this time.


This assessment and the resulting report have been executed by personnel with Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. who are qualified environmental engineers, and who possess the expertise to carry out the scope of work that was requested on this occasion. The assessment was directed and reviewed by a ‘qualified person’ as designated by the MOE. We warrant that it has been executed in a manner that is consistent with the standards of the industry.

Candec Engineering Consultants Inc.


Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND UTILIZATION ................................................................ 6

2.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 AREAL SETTING ............................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 SITE GEOLOGY & HYDROLOGY ................................................................................................ 7

4.0 REVIEW OF THE SITE HISTORY................................................................................................. 8

4.1 REGULATORY INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 8 4.1.1 Information Summary ........................................................................................................... 8 4.1.2 Public Records ..................................................................................................................... 8 4.1.3 Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) ..............................................................10

4.2 HISTORICAL MAPS & DIRECTORIES .................................................................................................11 4.3 RADON GAS ...................................................................................................................................11 4.4 PREVIOUS REPORTS .......................................................................................................................11

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE ..............................................................................................................12

5.1 AIR EMISSIONS ..............................................................................................................................12 5.2 WATER AND WASTE WATER DISCHARGES .......................................................................................12 5.3 DESIGNATED SUBSTANCES ..............................................................................................................12 5.4 STAINING, VEGETATION AND SUSPECT FILL MATERIALS ..................................................................12 5.5 DUSTS ...........................................................................................................................................13 5.6 STORAGE TANKS ............................................................................................................................13 5.7 INTERVIEWS ...................................................................................................................................13

6.0 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF INFORMATION ..................................................................14 6.1 CURRENT AND PAST USES ............................................................................................................14 6.2 POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................14 6.3 AREAS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN......................................................................14

7.0 QUALIFICATIONS ..........................................................................................................................15 8.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...............................................................16

REFERENCES: ...........................................................................................................................................18

APPENDICES

A. Photographs B. Title C. EcoLog ERIS Report D. Freedom of Information Request E. Maps & Aerial Photographs


December 10, 2014 Investcan Group Ltd. 6021 Yonge Street, Unit 229 Toronto, Ontario M4Y 2H6 Attention: Mr. Mike Petrovski Re: 2266 Lakeshore Road West & 83 East Street, Toronto Our Reference Number: 14-1433 Dear Sir;

1.0 INTRODUCTION Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. (herein after referred to as Candec) have executed a phase I environmental assessment at the above referenced site. The ESA was carried out in accordance with Canadian Standards Association “Standard Z768-01 (R2006); Phase I Environmental Site Assessment”. The assessment was carried out to obtain an indication of the likely presence of any condition at the site that might pose a health hazard to humans or pose a significant risk to the environment. It took the form of a review of all of the available public records at the relevant municipal and provincial departments as well as documentation from the Toronto Reference Library and several map libraries. The review process also took into account the history of the area, the previous commercial and industrial utilization and the storage or disposal of any toxic, hazardous or sanitary wastes materials.

25 West Beaver Creek Road, Unit 11, Richmond Hil l, Ontario L4B 1K2 Phone: (905) 707-9272 Fax: (905) 707-9273


Enquires were made of individuals that might have some knowledge of the property and its surroundings relating to past occurrences that might be of environmental significance.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND UTILIZATION

2.1 Subject property

The property is legally described as “Lot 68, Plan M8, except Part 1, 20R15079, Oakville; and PCL. 67-1, Se. M8, Lot 67, plan M8, Oakville

The associated PINs are 24762-0342(LT) and 24762-0074(LT)

The municipal address that has been applied to the property is

2266 Lakeshore Road West & 83 East Street, Oakville, Ontario Authorization to proceed with the assessment was given by Mr. Mike Petrovski, a representative and signing officer of the subject client. The title records that were reviewed revealed that the most recent owners of the two parcels comprising the assessment property three owners of the property prior to the current property owner were 83 East Street 2266 Lakeshore Road West 2005: Ju Young Kim & Suk Ssang Kim 2006: 2110749 Ontario Inc. 2004: 1420001 Ontario Inc. 2002: 2010071 Ontario Inc. 1992: TS Health & Safety Consultants Inc. It is bound on the north by Lakeshore Road West and on the west by East Street. The neighbouring properties to the south and east are occupied by single family and multi-unit residential buildings



2.2 Areal setting The property is in a highly developed area of the City of Oakville that is not known to be or designated as being environmentally or ecologically sensitive. There are no standing bodies of water within 250m of the subject property. There are no wells, septic tanks or leaching beds for sewage disposal on any of the surrounding properties. (b) Surrounding Properties All of the properties in the immediate vicinity of the subject property are developed and contain single family housing, high-rise residential buildings or commercial properties. The commercial properties are used exclusively for consumer retail or consumer services purposes. Some of these enterprises are listed as manufacturing operations. None of the properties are used for industrial purposes.

3.0 SITE GEOLOGY & HYDROLOGY A 1985 topographic map for was reviewed. The local topography appears to slope downward to the south and west on the phase one ESA property. Globally, the ground surface also appears to slope downward to the south and west of the phase one ESA property. This reflects the conditions that have been observed at the subject property and its vicinity recently. There are no bodies of water at the subject property. However, Lake Ontario is located approximately 300m to the south. Hydraulically, it is expected that the groundwater regime will slope downward to the south. Given that the soil appears to predominantly fine grained and cohesive, it is expected that vertical and horizontal permeability and percolation rates will be relatively low, likely less than 1x10-6 cm/sec. The geology of the subject property is expected to be characterized by Halton Till (Ontario – Erie Lobe). This deposit is predominantly a silt and silty clay matrix. The soil matrix is underlain by Upper Ordovician shale, limestone, dolostone and siltstone of the Queenston Formation. Bedrock is expected to be located at a depth of approximately 3m to 10m below the ground surface.



4.0 REVIEW OF THE SITE HISTORY

4.1 Regulatory Information A Freedom of Information request was submitted to the MOE. The request was made in relation to any environmental issues, including outstanding orders, regarding the subject property for all years for which their records are available. At the time this report was prepared, a response had not yet been received. In the event a response is received that impact on the finding so of this report, a written addendum to the report will be issued. In addition, the data bases maintained by several agencies were accessed to determine if there is information on file related to the subject property. In order to assess the possible impact on the subject property, a 250m radius study area was selected, centered at the subject property, and any information on the activities and the property within this area was reviewed

4.1.1 Information Summary In addition to the FOI request that has been made, the following databases and publications were reviewed, with the results as listed below: In order to compile the land use history and the development of the neighbouring sites, several sources of information were investigated. These sources and the information that was collated are summarized below.

4.1.2 Public Records A Freedom of Information request was submitted to the MOE. The request was made in relation to any environmental concerns regarding the subject property for all years for which their records are available. To date a response in this regard had not been received. A request was submitted to the Technical Standards and Safety Authority to review their data base for any information relating to the subject property. The response that was received informed that they had not records pertaining to the subject property.



In addition, information in a series of databases and publications were reviewed. The results are summarized below. (a) PCB Storage Sites Neither the National nor Provincial PCB registries list the subject property or any property within the study area as a site for the storage of polychlorinated biphenyls. (b) The MOE Waste Disposal Site Inventory (1991) The MOE did not list the subject property as being an active or closed waste disposal site. There are no such properties within the study area. (c) Inventory of Coal Gasification Plant Waste Sites in Ontario (1987) The available records did not indicate that the subject property was the site of a former coal gasification plant. (d) MOE Database of Registered Waste Generators (1996) The MOE does not list the subject property as a registered generator of subject waste pursuant to Ontario Regulation 347. There is one such property within the study area. A dry cleaning establishment is located at 2304 Lakeshore Road West, approximately 120m to the west and down-gradient from the subject property. The wastes that are generated are classified as halogenated solvents. The ground surface elevation of the property on which this enterprise is located, is located several meters lower than that of the phase one ESA property and is hydraulically down-gradient also. Therefore, given these considerations and the separation distance, it is not likely that the operations at this property will impact the soil and ground water conditions at the phase one ESA property. (e) Certificates of Approval (Air) No certificates of approval for discharge into the air have been issued to the subject property.



(f) Fuel Storage Tanks Fuel storage tanks have never been located on the phase one ESA property. There have been or are underground storage tanks for fuel located on two properties in the study area. These properties are on the north side of Lakeshore Road West, opposite to the subject property, on either side of East Street. One of these properties was decommissioned and a record of site conditions was prepared and filed with need for risk prevention measures. Therefore that property poses no risk at this time. The other facility, which is still in existence, has four double-walled fibreglass storage tanks, with spill detection sensors. This arrangement, and the presence of major trunk sewers under Lakeshore Road West that serve to intercept any fluid migration from the north, make it highly unlikely that the remaining facility will have an adverse impact on the soil and ground water at the phase one ESA property. (g) Scott’s Manufacturing Directory This database does not list the property as the location of a former manufacturing enterprise, and there are none within the study area. (h) Spills The Occurrence Reporting Information System (ORIS) informed that there have been five incidents within the study area since the 1980s. None of the spills within 200m of the subject property was related to petroleum hydrocarbon liquids. There was a spill of 400L of bleach on the ground surface within 50m of the subject property in 1992. It reportedly flowed in to the sewers. None of the other reported spills are likely to have a significant impact on the soil and ground water conditions at the phase one ESA property.

4.1.3 Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) The TSSA’s data base revealed that there are no records pertaining to the subject property.



4.2 Historical Maps & Directories The land use history of the subject property and surrounding properties was reviewed by obtaining information from the following sources: Aerial photographs dating back to 1987 were available for review. In total, aerial photographs for the years 1987, 1999 and 2009 were reviewed. They reveal that there was only one building on the phase one property in 1987. The remaining photos reveal the developmental progression of the study area, depicting, for the most part, the conditions that are present at this time. The lot delineations did not suggest a previous industrial usage of the property such that would dictate the need for photos that predated this period. It is noted that there was no relief observed in any of the photos that would suggest the presence of a creek in the vicinity of the phase one property The contents of the Criss Cross Directories were reviewed. The listings date back to 1970 and reveal that the subject property has never been used for any purpose other than residential and retail commercial.

4.3 Radon Gas A radon gas survey has not been performed upon the property. However, the soil profile of the area in which the property is located is not known to generate significant volumes of radon. Therefore it is not expected that there will be any basis for concern in relation to radon at the property. However, in the event a greater degree of certainty is required in this regard, some consideration should be given to the execution of a study geared specifically to this issue.

4.4 Previous Reports A phase one ESA was carried out of the property at 83 East Street in 2005. A review of the report that was prepared at the conclusion of the assessment suggest that a very rudimentary protocol had been followed and did not necessarily follow the protocols put forward by the Canadian Standards Association and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. However, it did include a records review and an inspection of the conditions at that property.



Some the information that was collated at that time was collated as part of the current assessment and has been verified. The 2005 assessment concluded that there were no issues of concern that would warrant the execution of a phase two ESA.

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE A site reconnaissance was conducted at the subject property by a representative of Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. The property was examined for visual or olfactory indications of potential issues of environmental concern. At the time, no unusual activities were being carried out at the property. The results of the reconnaissance are discussed below.

5.1 Air Emissions No air exhaust stacks are situated on the property.

5.2 Water and Waste Water Discharges There was no accumulated water on the property. There was no visible or olfactory evidence that the ground surface had been adversely impacted by waste water discharges in the past.

5.3 Designated Substances A visual inspection of the interior and exterior of the building revealed that there were no issues relating to designated substances on the property

5.4 Staining, Vegetation and Suspect Fill Materials No staining or markings were observed on the ground surface that suggested there had been a spill on a liquid that had the potential to impact the environment adversely.



5.5 Dusts No activities were occurring at the subject property or in the immediate vicinity of the property at the time of the site inspection that was likely to generate significant volumes of dust. No dust plumes were noted for the duration of the time spent on site during the site visit.

5.6 Storage Tanks No visible evidence was noted that suggests that an underground storage tank is present on the subject property. An aboveground storage tank was not observed on any portion of the property.

5.7 Interview s An interview was held with the receptionist of the firm that occupies the premises at 2266 Lakeshore Road West. She informed that they had been at that location for approximately 20years and that in that time they had remodeled and renovated the building. She informed that there were no previously executed environmental site assessments of the property and that the records that her company had available did not contain any information that suggest that the soil or ground water at the property was likely to have been impacted in anyway by past activities at the property. She also informed that, to the best of her knowledge, there was no asbestos, PCBs, or ureaformaldehyde in the building, and that there were no USTs on the property. An interview was held with Mr. Kim, who was at Hasty Market services counter. He has been there for the past nine years. During the time since he has been there, no environmental mishaps has occurred in the area. He also informed that there are no underground storage tanks on the property housing his company. He informed also that they do not sell propane gas.



6.0 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF INFORMATION

6.1 Current and Past Uses The data that has been collated has revealed that the phase one property was first developed in the early 1950s with the construction of the building that is currently there property and that the phase one property has only ever been used for residential purposes.

6.2 Potentially Contaminating Activities These data have also revealed that no potentially contaminating activities has ever been carried out at the phase one property.

6.3 Areas of Potential Environmental Concern The data that has been collated and the observations that were made revealed that potentially contaminating activities have occurred or are occurring on properties within the phase one study area. These are • A waste disposal facility was never present at the phase one ESA property or

any of the properties within the study area. • There are two locations immediately to the north of the phase one ESA

property, in which underground storage tanks were located. One of these no longer operates as a gas station; it has been decommissioned and an RSC was prepared and filed for it with the MECC. The other property has four double-walled tanks with leak detection sensors in place. These facilities along with the presence of major trunk sewers under Lakeshore Road West that serves to intercept any fluid migration from the north, make it unlikely that the phase one ESA property will be impacted by the property to the north.

• There is one registered waste (halogenated solvents) generator located

approximately 200m down-gradient to the west from the phase one ESA property. Given that this site is hydraulically down-gradient and the ground



surface slopes sharply downward from the subject property, it is not likely to have an impact on the subject property.

On this basis, it has been concluded that none of the properties within the phase one study area are likely to impact the phase one property. No issues have been revealed regarding designated substances. There was no visible or olfactory evidence at the time the assessment was carried out that any potentially harmful chemical contaminant had been spilled or released into the air at the property. The current appearance of the subject property suggests that reasonable good housekeeping practices are followed. Documentation has been reviewed that reveals that PCB waste materials were never stored on the site. No radioactive materials were on site or evidence of its presence such that it would require licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency. There are not explosives at the site. There is no visible evidence that there is an underground storage tank on the properties. Neither the Technical Standards and Safety Authority currently or the Anderson Storage Tank Registry historically possesses any information that suggests a UST was ever located on the property. Based on the data that was collated, we have are of the opinion that there is unlikely to be a subsoil or groundwater condition on the subject property that contravenes the commercial land use criteria in effect at this time or that constitutes an environmental risk or hazard to individuals at the property. At this time, a phase two assessment is not recommended.

7.0 QUALIFICATIONS This assessment and the resulting report have been executed by personnel with Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. who are qualified environmental engineers, and who possess the expertise to carry out the scope of work that was requested on this occasion. We warrant that it has been executed in a manner that is consistent with the standards of the industry. The data collation, site inspections and interviews were conducted by Mr. Godfrey Nelson, B.A.Sc., who possesses ten years of experience in the execution of environmental site assessments.



The assessment was directed and reviewed by Mr. Bernard Moore, P. Eng., a ‘qualified person’ as designated by the MOE to perform phase 1 and 2 ESAs as well as risk assessments. He possesses a graduate degree in engineering. He has performed or supervised the performance of over 2500 environmental site assessments and risk assessments.

8.0 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LIMITATIONS

1. The work performed in the preparation of this report and the conclusions presented are subject to the following:

(a) The Scope of Services; (b) Time and Budgetary limitations as described in our Contract; and, (c) The Limitations stated herein.

2. No other warranties or representatives, either expressed or implied are

made as to the professional services provided under the terms of our Contract, or the conclusions presented.

3. The conclusions presented in this report were based, in part, on visual observations of the site and the attendant structures. Our conclusions cannot and are not extended to include those portions of the site or structures which were not reasonably available, in Candec Engineering Consultants Inc.’s opinion, for direct observation.

4. The environmental conditions at the site were assessed, within the limitations set out above, having due regard for applicable environmental applications as of the date of the inspection. A review of compliance by past owners or occupants of the site with any applicable local, provincial, or federal by-laws, orders-in-council, legislative enactments, and regulations was not performed.

5. The site history research included obtaining information from third parties and employees or agents of the owner. No attempt has been made to verify the accuracy of any information provided, unless specifically noted in our report.

6. Where testing was performed, it was carried out in accordance with the terms of our contract providing for testing. Other substances, or different quantities of substances for, may be present on site and may be revealed by different or other testing not provided for in our contract.



7. Because of the limitations referred to above, different environmental

conditions from those stated in our report may exist. Should such difference conditions be encountered, Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. must be notified in order that it may determine if modifications to the conclusions in the report are necessary.

8. The utilization of Candec Engineering Consultants Inc.’s services during the implementation of any remedial measures will allow Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. to observe compliance with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. Candec Engineering Consultants Inc.’s involvement will also allow for changes to be made as necessary to suit field conditions as they are encountered.

9. This report is for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed unless expressly stated otherwise in the report or contract. Any use which any third party makes of the report, in whole or in part, or any reliance thereon or decisions made based on any information or conclusions in the report is the sole responsibility of such third party.

10. Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages or loss of any nature or kind suffered by any such third party as a result of actions taken or decisions made in reliance on the report or anything set out therein,

11. This report is not to be given to any third party for any purpose whatsoever without the written permission of Candec Engineering Consultants Inc.

Yours truly, Candec Engineering Consultants Inc. Bernard F. Moore, P. Eng., M. Eng. Principal



References:

1. Ontario Regulation 153/04; Soil, Groundwater and Sediment for Use under Part XVI of the Environmental Protection Act.

2. Ontario Regulation 511/09; made under the Environmental Protection Act, amending O. Reg. 153/04 (Records of Site Condition – Part XV.1 of the Act).

3. Canadian Standards Association Standard Z768-01 (R2006); Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

4. Handbook of PCB in Electrical Equipment; Ministry of the Environment; 1984.

5. Ontario Regulation 278/05 made under the Occupational Health and

Safety Act; Designated Substance – Asbestos on Construction Projects and in Buildings and Repair Operations.

6. Map 2544, Bedrock Geology of Southern Ontario, Southern Sheet; Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

7. Map 2556, Quaternary Geology of Ontario, Southern Sheet; Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

8. Ontario Geological Survey Preliminary Map P. 2204, Geological Series, Quaternary Geology, Toronto and Surrounding Area; Ministry of Natural Resources.



APPENDIX A

Photographs



North panorama of the property

West panorama of the property



(a)

(b)

(c)

Areas to the north and west of the phase one study property



(a)

(b)

(c) Panoramic view of the areas to the south and east



APPENDIX B

Title


PARCEL REGISTER (ABBREVIATED) FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIER

LAND PAGE 1 OF 2

REGISTRY PREPARED FOR BERNARD MOORE

OFFICE #20 24762−0342 (LT) ON 2014/12/09 AT 16:02:20

* CERTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND TITLES ACT * SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS IN CROWN GRANT *

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LT 68, PL M8 EXCEPT PT 1 20R15079;OAKVILLE. T/W EASE HR238401 OVER PT 1 20R15079.

PROPERTY REMARKS: PLAN M8 IS NOT A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PLANNING ACT.

ESTATE/QUALIFIER: RECENTLY: PIN CREATION DATE:FEE SIMPLEABSOLUTE

DIVISION FROM 24762−0075 2003/11/10

OWNERS’ NAMES CAPACITY SHARE2110749 ONTARIO INC. ROWN

REG. NUM.

DATE

INSTRUMENT TYPE

AMOUNT

PARTIES FROM

PARTIES TO

CERT/CHKD

** PRINTOUT INCLUDES ALL DOCUMENT TYPES AND DELETED INSTRUMENTS SINCE: 2003/11/10 **

BL708 1958/05/05 BYLAW C

20BA148 1968/03/13 PLAN BOUNDRIES ACT C REMARKS: M8

HR115366 2002/04/30 TRANSFER *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** 1032015 ONTARIO LIMITED 2010071 ONTARIO INC.

HR115367 2002/04/30 CHARGE *** DELETED AGAINST THIS PROPERTY *** 2010071 ONTARIO INC. EPSTEIN FAMILY HOLDINGS LIMITED KOMINEK, IVAN

HR115452 2002/05/01 NO ASSGN RENT GEN *** DELETED AGAINST THIS PROPERTY *** 2010071 ONTARIO INC. EPSTEIN FAMILY HOLDINGS LIMITED KOMINEK, IVAN REMARKS: HR115367

HR381008 2005/05/31 CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** 2010071 ONTARIO INC. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA

HR381042 2005/05/31 NO ASSGN RENT GEN *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** 2010071 ONTARIO INC. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA REMARKS: HR381008 − RENTS

HR381825 2005/06/01 DISCH OF CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** EPSTEIN FAMILY HOLDINGS LIMITED KOMINEK, IVAN REMARKS: RE: HR115367

HR514414 2006/09/27 TRANSFER $885,000 2010071 ONTARIO INC. 2110749 ONTARIO INC. C REMARKS: PLANNING ACT STATEMENTS

NOTE: ADJOINING PROPERTIES SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED TO ASCERTAIN DESCRIPTIVE INCONSISTENCIES, IF ANY, WITH DESCRIPTION REPRESENTED FOR THIS PROPERTY. NOTE: ENSURE THAT YOUR PRINTOUT STATES THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES AND THAT YOU HAVE PICKED THEM ALL UP.


LAND PAGE 2 OF 2


OFFICE #20 24762−0342 (LT) ON 2014/12/09 AT 16:02:20


REG. NUM.

DATE

INSTRUMENT TYPE

AMOUNT

PARTIES FROM

PARTIES TO

CERT/CHKD

HR514415 2006/09/27 CHARGE $500,000 2110749 ONTARIO INC. THE TORONTO−DOMINION BANK C

HR519176 2006/10/17 DISCH OF CHARGE *** COMPLETE LY DELETED *** ROYAL BANK OF CANADA REMARKS: RE: HR381008



LAND PAGE 1 OF 3


OFFICE #20 24762−0074 (LT) ON 2014/12/09 AT 16:03:16


PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: PCL 67−1, SEC M8 ; LT 67, PL M8 ; OAKVILLE

PROPERTY REMARKS: PLAN M8 IS NOT A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PLANNING ACT.

ESTATE/QUALIFIER: RECENTLY: PIN CREATION DATE:FEE SIMPLEABSOLUTE

FIRST CONVERSION FROM BOOK 1996/03/25

OWNERS’ NAMES CAPACITY SHAREKIM, JU YOUNG JTEN KIM, SSANG SUK JTEN

REG. NUM.

DATE

INSTRUMENT TYPE

AMOUNT

PARTIES FROM

PARTIES TO

CERT/CHKD

**EFFECTIVE 2000/07/29 THE NOTATION OF THE " BLOCK IMPLEMENTATION DATE" OF 1996/03/25 ON THIS PIN**

**WAS REPLACED WITH THE " PIN CREATION DATE" OF 1996/03/25**

** PRINTOUT INCLUDES ALL DOCUMENT TYPES AND DELETED INSTRUMENTS SINCE: 1996/03/22 **

BL708 1958/05/05 BYLAW C

20BA148 1968/03/13 PLAN BOUNDRIES ACT C REMARKS: M8

H504311 1992/02/28 TRANSFER *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** TS HEALTH & SAFETY CONSULTANTS INC.

H537871 1993/02/01 CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK

HR260519 2004/01/30 TRANSFER *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** TS HEALTH & SAFETY CONSULTANTS INC. 1420001 ONTARIO INC.

HR260520 2004/01/30 CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** 1420001 ONTARIO INC. TS HEALTH & SAFETY CONSULTANTS INC.

HR267860 2004/03/03 DISCH OF CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA REMARKS: RE: H537871

HR376570 2005/05/13 TRANSFER $650,000 1420001 ONTARIO INC. KIM, JU YOUNG C KIM, SSANG SUK REMARKS: PLANNING ACT STATEMENTS

HR376571 2005/05/13 CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** KIM, JU YOUNG KOREA EXCHANGE BANK OF CANADA KIM, SSANG SUK



LAND PAGE 2 OF 3


OFFICE #20 24762−0074 (LT) ON 2014/12/09 AT 16:03:16


REG. NUM.

DATE

INSTRUMENT TYPE

AMOUNT

PARTIES FROM

PARTIES TO

CERT/CHKD


HR376573 2005/05/13 DISCH OF CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** TS HEALTH & SAFETY CONSULTANTS INC. REMARKS: RE: HR260520

HR376581 2005/05/13 NO ASSGN RENT GEN *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** KIM, JU YOUNG KOREA EXCHANGE BANK OF CANADA KIM, SSANG SUK REMARKS: HR376571 & HR376572

HR376582 2005/05/13 CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** KIM, JU YOUNG 1420001 ONTARIO INC. KIM, SSANG SUK


HR670034 2008/06/09 DISCH OF CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** 1420001 ONTARIO INC. REMARKS: RE: HR376582


HR1003050 2012/03/21 DISCH OF CHARGE *** COMPLETELY DELETED *** KOREA EXCHANGE BANK OF CANADA REMARKS: HR376571.





LAND PAGE 3 OF 3


OFFICE #20 24762−0074 (LT) ON 2014/12/09 AT 16:03:16


REG. NUM.

DATE

INSTRUMENT TYPE

AMOUNT

PARTIES FROM

PARTIES TO

CERT/CHKD

HR1076722 2013/01/17 CHARGE $700,000 KIM, JU YOUNG SHINHAN BANK CANADA C KIM, SSANG SUK



APPENDIX C

EcoLog ERIS Report

APPENDIX D

Freedom Of Information Request

Ministry of theEnvironment

Freedom of Information Request

0026 (05/02) Page 1 of 1

This form is for requesting documents which are in the Ministry's files on environmental concerns related to properties. Please refer to the guide oncompletion and use of this form. Our fax no. is (416) 314-4285.

Requester Data For Ministry Use Only Name, Company Name, Mailing Address and Email Address of Requester

Email address:

FOI Request No.

Date Request Received

Fee Paid

~ ACCT ~ CHQ ~ VISA/MC ~ CASH

Telephone/Fax Nos.

Tel.Fax

Your Project/Reference No. Signature/Print /Name of Requester~ CNR ~ ER ~ NOR ~ SWR ~ WCR~ SAC ~ IEB ~ EAA ~ EMR ~ SWA

Request ParametersMunicipal Address / Lot, Concession, Geographic Township (Municipal address essential for cities, towns or regions)

Present Property Owner(s) and Date(s) of Ownership

Previous Property Owner(s) and Date(s) of Ownership

Present/Previous Tenant(s),(if applicable)

Search ParametersFiles older than 2 years may require $60.00 retrieval cost. There is no guarantee that records responsive to your request will be located.

Specify Year(s) Requested

Environmental concerns (General correspondence, occurrence reports, abatement)

Orders

Spills

Investigations/prosecutions ' Owner AND tenant information must be provided

Waste Generator number/classes

Certificates of Approval ' Proponent information must be provided

1985 and prior records are searched manually. Search fees in excess of $300.00 could be incurred, depending on the types and years to be searched. SpecifyCertificates of Approval number(s) (if known). If supporting documents are also required, mark SD box and specify type e.g. maps, plans, reports, etc.

SD Specify Year(s) Requested

air - emissions

water - mains, treatment, ground level, standpipes & elevated storage, pumping stations (local & booster)

sewage - sanitary, storm, treatment, stormwater, leachate & leachate treatment & sewage pump stations

waste water - industrial discharges

waste sites - disposal, landfill sites, transfer stations, processing sites, incinerator sites

waste systems - PCB destruction, mobile waste processing units, haulers: sewage, non-hazardous & hazardous waste

pesticides - licensesA $5.00 non-refundable application fee, payable to the Minister of Finance, is mandatory. The cost of locating on-site and/or preparing any record is$30.00/hour and 20 cents/page for photocopying and you will be contacted for approval for fees in excess of $30.00.

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

[email protected]

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard Moore

Bernard

Typewritten Text


Bernard

Typewritten Text

11-25 West Beaver Creek Road Richmond Hill, Ont. L4B 1K2

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

9057079272

Bernard

Typewritten Text

9057079273

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

All Years

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

2110749 Ontario Inc; Ju Young Kim & Suk Ssang Kim

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard

Typewritten Text

Bernard Moore

Typewritten Text

2266 Lakeshore Road West &83 East Street, Oakville, Ontario

Bernard Moore

Typewritten Text

14-1433

Bernard Moore

Typewritten Text

B. Moore

APPENDIX E

Maps & Aerial Photographs

1985 Topographical Map

2004 Aerial Photograph

1999 Aerial photograph

REPORT OF THE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ... planning/da-172861...December 10, 2014 This assessment...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT OF THE PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ... planning/da-172861...December 10, 2014 This assessment...