A Convergence of Truths
There is another truth I feel compelled to speak.
At or near the same time that I received an anonymous phone call from a concerned family member of an HCA employee—someone deeply troubled by the suggestion that the Ancaster Well lands were “for sale for $2”—I also received an email from a respected and credible source at McMaster University. That email proved to be pivotal. It was through this correspondence that we first became aware of Page 3 of the 1998 Transfer/Deed of Land, a page that contains explicit restrictive covenants protecting the use of the Ancaster Wells property.
Until that moment, Page 3 had not been part of the public narrative.
Its contents fundamentally alter the understanding of this land transfer. The restrictions clearly limit use of the property and exist to protect the water source for present and future generations. Yet there is no evidence that this page—and its covenants—were ever meaningfully disclosed to, or considered by, the relevant boards or decision-makers.
This raises deeply troubling questions.
Was the governing board ever shown Page 3 in full?
Were they made aware that binding, protective covenants existed?
And if not, why not?
I am further concerned by the sequence of events that followed. The appearance that the City of Hamilton and/or the Hamilton Conservation Authority sold the property back to itself—effectively extinguishing these restrictive covenants—creates the troubling impression that this was done not in the public interest, but as a development-enabling maneuver.
That concern deepened when I became aware that the Ancaster Well appears in City of Hamilton Bylaw 18-068, a bylaw that explicitly shows a municipal property being transferred for $2.
Given the earlier anonymous call referencing a $2 sale, this convergence cannot be ignored.
I have repeatedly asked for clarification as to why the Ancaster Well is included in Bylaw 18-068, what specific parcel is being referenced, and how this transaction relates to the known restrictive covenants on the land. To date, I have not received a substantive answer.
In my interactions with my councillor, Craig Cassar, I experienced responses that dismissed or minimized these concerns rather than addressing them directly. As a resident seeking transparency on the disposition of protected public lands, this left me feeling gaslit rather than informed.
If true, this would mean that protections placed on the land in 1998—explicitly for the purpose of safeguarding a vital water source—were later removed without clear public explanation, and that subsequent inquiries have been met with deflection rather than clarity.
This is not merely a question of land title mechanics. It is a question of trust, governance, and whether commitments made to protect the Ancaster Wells were quietly undone to serve later development objectives.
Truth has a way of surfacing—sometimes through an unexpected phone call, sometimes through an email sent in good conscience by someone who understands the gravity of what is at stake.
I share this not as accusation, but as testimony. These are the facts as they unfolded for me. And they demand answers.