YOUR LETTERS Reporting questioned

I was troubled and surprised this morning when I read the article written on Wednesday (New studies on BCR property show dangers, Brink says).

I am very disappointed that the Prince George Citizen has declined to such a horrendous level of reporting where a reporter does not do any research and as a result, prints an article full of errors.

It is obvious that the Prince George Citizen did not attempt to get the basic facts of this press release correct.

A simple phone call to me would have prevented these errors. The purpose of this letter to the editor is to correct the inaccuracies in your article. The facts are as follows: • I make no claim that “a site [owned by] BCR Properties Ltd. may be causing contamination to the city’s water supply and may be susceptible to spontaneous ignition”, as reported in your story I am simply releasing factual information from reports prepared by Environmental Experts which I received on Monday.

• Furthermore, the Brink Group has not purchased the site. We started leasing the property in 2005 and continue to lease to this day, with an option to purchase (subject to subdivision).

• The sawmill site would have created 150 additional jobs directly, as previously quoted. Indirectly, it would have created an additional 50 jobs at our finger joint operation located on River Road. Combined, this is a total of 200 new jobs in Prince George.

• The landfill was permitted by Netherlands Overseas Mills Ltd. in 1978 and operated until 1999. Therefore, the landfill was operational for 22 years, not 40 years as indicated in the article.

• On Feb. 20, 2013, I commenced legal action against BCR Properties for fraudulent

misrepresentation by not disclosing the presence of the landfill. On March 22, 2017,

Honourable Madame Justice Church allowed me to add additional claims of fraudulent misrepresentation; that each party had a “duty of honest performance or good faith performance” and that BCR Properties had a duty to disclose the presence of the landfill, which created an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment.

• There have been several rulings from the court related to this matter. The majority, but not all, have been in my favor and none of the claims have been dismissed.

Thank you for the opportunity to correct the errors in your article. As you can appreciate, this matter is before the courts and incorrect information could be detrimental to the outcome of the litigation.

John Brink Prince George Editor’s Note: Here is The Citizen’s response to each of these points.

First, it’s safe to presume that hand-delivering the press release to The Citizen in regards to the results of reports you commissioned indicates you believe in the accuracy of those reports and plan to use them in your ongoing legal battle with BCR Properties.

We quoted your own words in your own press release: “I would find it hard to believe that BCR Properties, as an owner of the land, is not already aware of the danger to human health and fire hazard that exists due to the landfill and its toxic nature.”

If you’re not claiming the results are true, what exactly are you claiming?

Second, you are correct that you have not purchased the property. That error was ours.

The story should have read that you leased and attempted to buy the property. That change was immediately made to the online version of the story upon receipt of your letter.

Third, the source of our reporting that the landfill had been operational for 40 years is your own lawyer. That’s what Jon Duncan told the court back in March.

Fourth, you are wrong that none of your claims have been dismissed. In 2011, a B.C. Supreme Court Justice dismissed your allegation that BCR Properties had breached the option to purchase by not completing a property appraisal.

Lastly, the law courts do not make any decisions based on any reporting on any topic in The Citizen or anywhere else.

The rule of law, not the court of public opinion, is the only concern of any judge.

Our coverage – past, present and future – will have no impact whatsoever on your ongoing legal battles, nor should it.