Daniel Nelson

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated April 8, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal corrected the spelling of a witness's name from 'Ms. McFarlane' to 'Ms. McFarland' in several paragraphs.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellant objected to the City of Toronto's designation of the property at 15 Elm Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued the property, a heavily altered vernacular building, did not meet the criteria for cultural heritage value under O. Reg. 9/06.

The City contended the property was a rare surviving Confederation-era house-form building that contributed to the understanding of the historic immigrant neighbourhood known as The Ward.

The Tribunal found the property met three of the four criteria, concluding it was a rare example of vernacular Georgian architecture, yielded information about working-class immigrant residents, and supported the character of the area.

The appeal was allowed in part only to the extent that the property did not meet the criterion of being historically linked to its surroundings, and the City was ordered to amend the designation by-law accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. concerning the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision, as well as an appeal regarding the demolition of a heritage building.

The order sets out the schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 15-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by DGB Trafalgar Limited objecting to the Town of Oakville's heritage designation By-law 2023-154 for the Bentley Family Farmhouse.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The hearing is scheduled to commence by video on September 10, 2024.

The appellant owner appealed the City of Ottawa's by-law designating their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The owner intended to demolish the existing c. 1912 house to build two new homes.

The Tribunal evaluated the property against three criteria under O. Reg. 9/06.

While finding insufficient evidence to establish design/physical value or historical/associative value, the Tribunal concluded the property has contextual value as it helps define, support, and maintain the character of the Highland Park area.

The appeal was allowed in part, but the designation was upheld based on contextual value.

The City of Cornwall sought to repeal a by-law designating a property on which Locomotive No. 17, a heritage artefact, was situated.

Various community members objected to the repeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while the locomotive is an important heritage artefact, the land itself has no cultural heritage value or interest, and the placement of the artefact on the land did not create such value.

The Tribunal recommended that the designating by-law be repealed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2477454 Ontario Inc. against the County of Prince Edward's by-law designating the Wellington Heritage Conservation District.

The parties indicated their intention to seek Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the issues.

The Tribunal supported this approach and directed the parties to advise the Case Coordinator of next steps once known.

Members of the public in attendance were advised on how to request party or participant status for future proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's By-law No. 1218-2022, which designates the Parkdale Main Street Heritage Conservation District.

The parties consented to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence in September 2024 and approved the final Procedural Order to guide the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The order set the hearing dates, identified the parties, and established requirements for witness lists, document exchange, and expert evidence.

This is a procedural order arising from a case management conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Due to a pending sale of the property, the Tribunal set out a schedule for the new purchaser to become a party and file a new Notice of Objection, and for the current objectors to withdraw their objection upon closing.

A second case management conference was scheduled.

The Township of South Stormont sought to repeal the heritage designation of a municipally-owned property known as the Raisin River Heritage Centre, intending to demolish it.

Several community members and the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario objected to the repeal, referring the matter to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Applying the test for repeal of designation, the Tribunal found that the property continues to retain cultural heritage value or interest, a point conceded by the Township's own expert.

Consequently, the Tribunal recommended that the designating bylaw not be repealed and advised the municipality to consider adaptive reuse rather than demolition in fulfilling its statutory duty to protect heritage properties.

The City of Oshawa issued a Notice of Intention to Designate (NOID) a property owned by Scouts Canada under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector agreed the property had cultural heritage value but objected to the wording of the NOID and the municipality's process.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the objection for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that its jurisdiction under the former Act is limited to determining whether a property has cultural heritage value or interest, and it has no authority to judicially review a municipality's decision-making process or the drafting of a NOID.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an objection by Nantuck Investments Inc. and Julie Gill to the City of Oshawa's Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 195 Simcoe Street North under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order scheduling a two-day video hearing and setting out requirements for witness lists, document exchange, and expert evidence.

The City of Oshawa indicated its intention to bring a motion to dismiss an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property known as Camp Samac for want of jurisdiction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order establishing a schedule for the motion to be heard in writing.

The Tribunal directed that submissions be restricted solely to the issue of whether it has jurisdiction to hear the matter under the former Ontario Heritage Act.

The Town of Amherstburg issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 109 Park Street under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners objected, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The sole issue was whether the property had contextual value under s. 3(i) of O. Reg 9/06 by defining, maintaining, or supporting the character of the area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Town's expert, finding that the property is part of a relatively intact 19th-century residential streetscape and archetypal to that character.

The Tribunal recommended that the property be designated, subject to revising the designating by-law to reflect only its contextual value.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Repeal Designation for a heritage property.

Several objectors failed to attend two scheduled pre-hearing conferences despite receiving proper notice.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board ordered that the inactive parties are no longer entitled to further notice in the proceedings, subject to their right to bring a motion to become active parties.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake issued Notices of Intention to Designate three adjacent properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector argued that the properties did not constitute a 'nested cultural heritage landscape' (CHL) and that their deep setbacks were not heritage attributes.

The Conservation Review Board found that while the properties could be considered a nested CHL for planning purposes under the Provincial Policy Statement, they could not be designated as such under the Act without improperly creating a de facto heritage conservation district.

However, the Board agreed with the Town that the deep setbacks, historically driven by a now-extinct watercourse and changing cultural norms, were valid heritage attributes that contributed to the properties' cultural heritage value.

The Board recommended designation with the nested CHL concept removed from the attributes.

The City of Mississauga issued a Notice of Intention to Designate a property under section 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objectors argued that because the property was previously designated in 1983, the notice should have been issued under section 30.1.

The Conservation Review Board agreed that this was a procedural defect.

Although the defect caused no prejudice to the objectors, the Board found it had no statutory authority to cure the defect and dismissed the matter.

The objectors opposed the City of Niagara Falls' Notice of Intention to Repeal a designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a ruling on a jurisdictional motion, a pre-hearing conference was held where the parties agreed to resume the hearing in writing.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting out the schedule for written submissions.

The City of Niagara Falls issued a Notice of Intention to Repeal the heritage designation of a municipally-owned property.

Objectors referred the matter to the Conservation Review Board.

During the hearing, the City brought a motion seeking to introduce non-heritage evidence (e.g., logistical concerns, restoration costs) to justify the repeal.

The Review Board dismissed the motion, holding that its jurisdiction in both designation and repeal matters is strictly limited to an independent evaluation of the property's cultural heritage value or interest under O. Reg. 9/06, and it does not review the broader policy decisions of the municipality.