Conservation Review Board

Commission des biens culturels

ISSUE DATE: June 22, 2015

CASE NO(S).: CRB1407

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(5) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18, as amended

Owner/Objector: Latiq Qureshi

Owner: Fatima Qureshi

Subject: Notice of Intention to Designate

Property Address: 2625 Hammond Road (also known as Hammond House)

Legal Description: Part of Lot 2, Range 1 South of Dundas Street, Racey Indian Tract, designated as Part 3, Plan 43R-3594

Municipality: City of Mississauga

CRB Case No.: CRB1407

CRB Case Name: Qureshi v. Mississauga (City)

Heard: June 18, 2015 by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative+
City of Mississauga	Raj Kehar
Latiq and Fatima Qureshi	Scott Snider and Shelley Kaufman

ORDER DELIVERED BY SU MURDOCH, DANIEL NELSON AND LAURIE SMITH

This Order is issued under the authority of s. 67.1(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act, s. 5.4 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, and corresponding Rules contained in the Conservation Review Board Rules of Practice and Procedure, April 1, 2015.

Background

The City of Mississauga (“City’) has issued a Notice of Intention to Designate (“Notice”) under s. 29(1.1) of the Ontario Heritage Act (“the Act”) the property known municipally as 2625 Hammond Road in the City of Mississauga (“the Property”). The understanding of the Conservation Review Board (“Review Board”) is that the intent of the Notice is to pass a bylaw that will, in effect, broaden the scope of Bylaw 244-84 which has protected a portion of this property under s. 29 of the Act since the passing of that bylaw in 1984.

A Hearing under s. 29(8) of the Act is to commence on July 27, 2015. The Parties have agreed to exchange disclosure documents on or before 4:00 p.m. on July 13.

Scott Snider as legal counsel representing the owners of the property, Latiq and Fatima Qureshi, is requesting that the City disclose certain documents itemized in Schedule A of this Order, and that this disclosure be completed on or before June 26. It is Mr. Snider’s position that the disclosure of these documents prior to July 13 is necessary to provide “the best evidence available” at the Hearing.

The City is responding as in Schedule B included in this Order, that it will disclose these documents under s. 17 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or as Ordered by the Review Board. The City confirms that it can do so on or before June 26 and considers Bylaw 296-14 General Fees and Charges to be applicable.

The Review Board considered the written submissions of the Parties and conducted a prehearing teleconference on June 18, 2015, to hear arguments and seek clarifications. This Order is a result of that prehearing teleconference.

Findings of the Review Board

The Review Board concurs with Mr. Snider that the documents itemized in Schedule A have the potential to prove necessary in providing “the best evidence available” at the Hearing. These documents may contain the full text of the chronology of the identification, evaluation, and protection of the Property in 1984, since 1984, and leading to the issuing of the Notice in 2014. This chronology may be directly relevant to the determination of cultural heritage value or interest at the Hearing.

The Review Board’s finding is specific to the unusual circumstance that this Property has been governed, in part, by s. 29 of the Act since 1984. It is not to be interpreted as the Review Board’s willingness to issue an Order for this type of advance disclosure as a general practice.

The Review Board Orders the following:

That the property owners through their agent, likely heritage consultant David Cuming (“the agent”), be granted the right to personal access to the documents held by the City as itemized in Schedule A; and that this access must be undertaken and completed on or before June 26, 2015.

This access is being granted by an Order of the Review Board, and not through a provision of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The provision of not disclosing privileged information still applies.

The day and time of this access must allow the City sufficient time to remove any privileged information from the documents; and must allow the agent adequate time to review these documents. The agent will be able to obtain copies of these documents, on request, on or before June 26.

As this is an Order of the Review Board and not a direct personal request to the City for service activity or use, the cost recovery provisions of the City’s Bylaw 296-14 General Fees and Charges are deemed not applicable. The City is permitted to charge the agent a per page copying fee.

Paying the Costs of a Party

The Review Board does not find any basis to support the request by Mr. Snider for an Order to pay the costs of a Party. The City is demonstrating a willingness to permit access to these documents in a manner that does not meet the test of unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious behaviour or of acting in bad faith.

“Su Murdoch”

SU MURDOCH VICE CHAIR

“Daniel Nelson”

DANIEL NELSON MEMBER

“Laurie Smith”

LAURIE SMITH MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Conservation Review Board A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

Schedule A

Schedule B