Public records & evidence index

Squire quarry proposal — ERO 012-7796

The notice describes a new, 32-hectare Class B quarry below water at Part Lot 10, Concession 4, Laxton, with a proposed annual limit of 20,000 tonnes. The published stage is Proposal Updated. The original comment period ended July 18, 2016; the April 2025 update did not open a new comment period. This notice is not an approval.

Reference: MNRF INST 45/16. A Ministry response on October 30, 2026 also identified application 624850 with this ERO notice.

Zoning, property mapping and planning policy

Use the City’s zoning page and mapping to identify the applicable parcel and by-law. General mapping is not a survey or a substitute for parcel-specific written confirmation. The October 28 planning reply about 592 referred to Rural Zoning By-law 2024-113, tables 7-2 and 7-3.

TEC Corp — Head Lake Aggregate Project

TEC Corp’s website describes a proposed Class A limestone quarry in the Head Lake area and says the project is in a pre-licensing and technical-assessment phase. Its timeline lists an aggregate licence application as planned and licence approval as to be determined.

These are the company’s own statements, not independently verified technical findings or confirmation of government approval. The page does not establish the precise legal parcel in the text reviewed. Its relationship to activity at 592 Digby–Laxton Boundary Road or the separate Squire proposal should be checked against parcel-specific official records.

Read TEC Corp’s Head Lake Aggregate Project page ↗

This external source is provided for transparency. Protect Our Lakes is an independent resident initiative and is not affiliated with TEC Corp.

Agency responses about 592

These are editorial paraphrases checked against the received replies, not copies of government notices or findings of an offence. They describe the position on the dates below, not a live status feed.

• October 24, 2026 — Municipal enforcement: confirmed that officers had attended the site, that the file was open and being investigated, and that other enforcement agencies had been informed.
• October 28, 2026 — Ministry of Natural Resources: stated that no aggregate licence or aggregate licence application was on file for 592 and that concerns would be reviewed. It identified an application on the adjacent property to the south.
• October 28, 2026 — City planning: identified Agricultural (AG) zoning for 592 under By-law 2024-113, stated that a quarry was not a permitted use, and reported that City and Ministry inquiries were continuing.
• October 29, 2026 — Ministry follow-up: acknowledged additional photographs and indicated that the concerns would continue to be examined.

Raw emails are withheld from the public website because their headers, quoted messages and attachments can identify residents. No conclusion is drawn here about other authorizations, exemptions or the outcome of an investigation.

Photographs and resident observations

The website includes five metadata-cleaned photographs showing an excavator, graded entrance ground and a blue gate, stone blocks, woodland, and a stone-loaded flatbed trailer. Captions describe visible conditions without asserting where material originated or whether activity was authorized. Additional photographs and video remain in the private evidence collection pending review of identity clues, context and relevance.

View the reviewed photographs → · Read the publication policy →

What is still missing?

• Complete current site plans, extraction limits and rehabilitation plans for the Squire proposal.
• Relevant water, ecological, noise, dust and blast-design studies, where applicable.
• Documented entrance approvals, sightline assessments, haul routes and traffic studies.
• Current investigation outcomes, file references and any orders or formal decisions.
• Reliable records establishing ownership or operational links between separate parcels and projects.

A Ministry response on October 29 stated that available records were being reviewed for release and that some material might require a formal access-to-information request. These documents are not presented here as received or complete.

We have not established site-specific groundwater damage, structural damage, habitat loss, a percentage change in property value, or a confirmed haul route. Those questions need appropriate records and expertise.