Su Murdoch

The Conservation Review Board held a telephone pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate the properties at 69 Long Branch Avenue and 24 Marina Avenue under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Board ordered the parties to advise whether they will proceed with the scheduled hearing or request an adjournment.

The parties were also directed to provide their availability for a fourth pre-hearing conference.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding the City of London's notice of intention to designate the property at 4402 Colonel Talbot Road under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Board issued a procedural order scheduling the hearing for January 30 to February 1, 2017, and set deadlines for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and documentary evidence.

The applicant property owner applied to repeal a designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Conservation Review Board ordered that the hearing proceed as a written hearing and established a schedule for the exchange of evidence and submissions.

The applicant property owner applied to repeal a municipal by-law designating her property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Conservation Review Board ordered the parties to hold an in-person meeting to exchange information and clarify the implications of the heritage designation and property tax relief program prior to the next pre-hearing teleconference.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order directing the parties to assemble an Agreed Statement of Facts and an Agreed Identification of Issues ahead of a Pre-hearing Settlement Conference regarding the proposed refusal to renew an archaeological licence.

A one-day conference was scheduled for April 11, 2016.

The City of Mississauga issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the entirety of a 2.15-acre property, which included a previously designated 19th-century dwelling and newly included natural features such as a watercourse and treed valley lands.

The property owners objected, arguing that the natural features lacked cultural heritage value.

The Conservation Review Board held a hearing and concluded that the property no longer retained sufficient farm-related features to be considered a representative example of a 19th-century farmstead.

The Board recommended that the City not proceed with designating the entire property and instead maintain the existing designation protecting the historic dwelling.

The objectors challenged the City of Hamilton's Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 1 St. James Place under the Ontario Heritage Act.

They alleged procedural irregularities in the issuance of the notice and argued the property lacked cultural heritage value.

The Conservation Review Board found no procedural breaches, ruling that internal municipal procedures were outside its jurisdiction and that statutory notice requirements were met.

On the merits, the Board found the property met the criteria for design, historical, and contextual value under O. Reg. 9/06, as a rare example of 1930s experimental composite construction and its association with the Pigott Construction Company.

The Board recommended the property be designated with a revised Statement of Cultural Heritage Value.

The Conservation Review Board issued an amending order on consent of the parties to change the date for the disclosure of certain documents held by the City of Mississauga.

The disclosure date was extended from June 26, 2015, to July 2, 2015, in the context of a proceeding regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate the property known as Hammond House under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners requested advance disclosure of certain documents held by the City of Mississauga prior to a hearing regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board granted the owners personal access to the documents, finding they had the potential to provide necessary evidence for the hearing.

The Board dismissed the owners' request for costs, finding the City did not act unreasonably or in bad faith.